ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2026
Optimized motion-insensitive PDFF mapping of the liver.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-Vendor Validation of Proton Density Fat Fraction and TJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
- Highly Reproducible, Vendor-Agnostic, Motion-Insensitive Liver PDFF Mapping at 0.55T, 1.5T, and 3T.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Optimized motion-insensitive PDFF mapping of the liver.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo implement, optimize, and validate parallel imaging (PI)-accelerated, 2D, flip angle modulated (FAM) chemical shift-encoded quantification of liver proton-density fat fraction (PDFF), with motion insensitivity.
methodsThe optimization cost function that determines flip angles in FAM was generalized for PI. Phantom studies and prospective studies in volunteers with varying liver fat levels were performed. Free-breathing FAM was acquired in the axial, sagittal, and coronal planes, with varying nominal PI acceleration factors (R) of 1.0 to 3.0. A breath-held, commercially available 3D chemical shift-encoded method was acquired as reference for PDFF. Overall image quality, qualitative SNR, and motion artifacts for all methods were Likert-scale rated. PDFF measured by FAM was compared to reference to assess bias. Test-retest repeatability was assessed for all methods by repeating acquisitions after volunteer repositioning. Noise performance was assessed with standard deviation of PDFF maps as R increased.
resultsThe reader study (N = 3 readers/10 subjects) demonstrated excellent image quality for FAM during free-breathing, with reduced motion artifacts compared to breath-held reference (p < 0.01). PI-accelerated FAM shows fewer motion artifacts than unaccelerated FAM (p < 0.01). In all planes and accelerations, PDFF measured by FAM showed good agreement with reference PDFF measurements (mean bias: -0.4% to 2.0% PDFF; 95% limits of agreement: 2.8% to 4.0% PDFF). FAM in axial and coronal planes showed similar or improved repeatability (repeatability coefficient = 1.7% to 2.6% PDFF) compared to the reference (2.7%). Sagittal FAM shows similar or worse repeatability (repeatability coefficient = 3.0% to 3.6%). FAM with R = 2.0 has good noise performance and high SNR efficiency.
conclusionFAM, in axial or coronal planes with R = 2.0, is optimal for motion-insensitive liver PDFF quantification.
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.