ArticlePloS one2025
Liver MRI proton density fat fraction inference from contrast enhanced CT images using deep learning: A proof-of-concept study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Physics-aware imaging AI for quantitative MASLD biomarker mapping: a systematic review of deep learning and radiomics across ultrasound, CT, and MRI.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Pooled it
- Validation of voxel-based computed tomography liver fat quantification for assessing incident type 2 diabetes risk in a health check-up population.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Genome-wide association and polygenic risk score analyses of MASLD-related hepatic steatosis severity in a Taiwanese Han population.Cell & bioscience · 2026Article
- Hepatic Fat Quantification Using Beta Distribution and a Probabilistic Neural Network in a Prepubertal Male Cohort.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is the most common cause of chronic liver disease worldwide, affecting over 30% of the global general population. Its progressive nature and association with other chronic diseases makes early diagnosis important. MRI Proton Density Fat Fraction (PDFF) is the most accurate noninvasive method for quantitatively assessing liver fat but is expensive and has limited availability; accurately quantifying liver fat from more accessible and affordable imaging could potentially improve patient care. This proof-of-concept study explores the feasibility of inferring liver MRI-PDFF values from contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) using deep learning. In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, we analyzed data from living liver donor candidates who had concurrent CECT and MRI-PDFF as part of their pre-surgical workup between April 2021 and October 2022. Manual MRI-PDFF analysis was performed following a standard of clinical care protocol and used as ground truth. After liver segmentation and registration, a deep neural network (DNN) with 3D U-Net architecture was trained using CECT images as single channel input and the concurrent MRI-PDFF images as single channel output. We evaluated performance using mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean squared error (RMSE), and mean errors (defined as the mean difference of results of comparator groups), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used Kappa statistics and Bland-Altman plots to assess agreement between DNN-predicted PDFF and ground truth steatosis grades and PDFF values, respectively. The final study cohort was of 94 patients, mean PDFF = 3.8%, range 0.2-22.3%. When comparing ground truth to segmented reference (MRI-PDFF), our model had an MAE of 0.56, an RMSE of 0.77, and a mean error of 0.06 (-1.75,1.86); when comparing medians of the predicted and reference MRI-PDFF images, our model had an MAE, an RMSE, and a mean error of 2.94, 4.27, and 1.28 (-4.58,7.14), respectively. We found substantial agreement between categorical steatosis grades obtained from DNN-predicted and clinical ground truth PDFF (kappa = 0.75). While its ability to infer exact MRI-PDFF values from CECT images was limited, categorical classification of fat fraction at lower grades was robust, outperforming other prior attempted methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.