ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Predicting esophageal varices in cirrhosis: diagnostic utility of MR elastography and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLiver cirrhosis is often complicated by esophageal varices (EVs) due to portal hypertension. Advances in MRI offer non-invasive methods for EV prediction. This study evaluates the diagnostic performance of liver stiffness (LS) and spleen stiffness (SS) from MR elastography (MRE) and EV visualization on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI in cirrhotic individuals.
methodsThis retrospective cross-sectional study included upper abdominal MRI studies from cirrhotic participants who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) between February 2022 and July 2023. LS and SS from MRE were measured, while two radiologists independently assessed EV presence on DCE-MRI. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using EGD findings as the reference standard. Optimal LS and SS cut-off values were determined via ROC curve analysis, and sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, predictive values, and accuracy were calculated.
resultsAmong 117 participants (median age 66, 72.6% male), chronic hepatitis B was the primary etiology (43.6%), and 74.4% had hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Optimal EV prediction cut-offs were 5.76 kPa for LS and 9.31 kPa for SS. For detecting any EVs, LS had 76% sensitivity and 76% specificity, while SS had 72% sensitivity and 79% specificity. For high-risk EVs, LS had 65% sensitivity and 77% specificity (AUC = 0.711), whereas SS had 83% sensitivity and 66% specificity (AUC = 0.780). DCE-MRI demonstrated sensitivity of 81-98% and specificity of 75-80%, with substantial inter-rater agreement (Kappa = 0.612).
conclusionSS by MRE outperformed LS in predicting high-risk EVs, while DCE-MRI demonstrated potential as a non-invasive screening tool. These findings support the integration of noninvasive MRI-based methods for EV screening in cirrhotic populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41186713What 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.