ArticleThe British journal of radiology2025
Harnessing intrinsic cardiac motion vs. external mechanical vibrations: a comparison of MRI cine-tagging and MR elastography for liver fibrosis assessment.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of MRI cine-tagging and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) for staging histologically confirmed liver fibrosis in patients with chronic liver disease.
methodsMRI cine-tagging evaluates liver strain as the deformation induced by intrinsic cardiac motion on the left liver lobe, whereas MRE captures liver stiffness in response to externally applied vibrations from a mechanical driver. A head-to-head comparison of MRI cine-tagging and MRE was performed in 76 participants with biopsy-proven chronic liver disease. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were assessed. AUCs were compared using the Delong method.
resultsMRE-derived shear modulus increased, while strain obtained from tagged cine MRI decreased with higher fibrosis stages (ρ = 0.73 and ρ = -0.67, respectively; P < .0001). Both shear modulus and strain values exhibited significant differences across fibrosis stages (P < .0001) and correlated with each other (ρ = -0.44, P < .0001). MRE provided higher AUCs than MRI cine-tagging only for distinguishing stages ≤F3 vs. F4 (0.91 vs. 0.87, P = .043). There were no significant differences in AUCs for differentiating other dichotomized fibrosis stages, including stages F0 vs. ≥F1 (0.87 vs. 0.81, P = .083), ≤F1 vs. ≥F2 (0.84 vs. 0.84, P = .889), and ≤F2 vs. ≥F3 (0.89 vs. 0.86, P = .116).
conclusionMRI cine-tagging provided a similar diagnostic performance compared to MRE for staging liver fibrosis, except for the diagnosis of cirrhosis (F4). It is possible to assess liver strain as part of abdominal MRI screening, offering additional insight into the left lobe without the need for additional equipment. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: A head-to-head comparison of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), the most accurate technique for the noninvasive staging of liver fibrosis, and MRI cine-tagging has not been performed yet. We found that MRI cine-tagging, having the advantage of not requiring any additional hardware, provides a similar diagnostic performance compared to MRE for staging liver fibrosis, except for the diagnosis of cirrhosis in patients with chronic liver disease.
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.