ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Clinical validation of T1ρ mapping for the assessment of hepatic fibrosis in patients with chronic liver disease.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Imaging of MASLD: clinical standards and novel methods.Diabetologia · 2026Review
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
objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic utility of T1ρ mapping for assessing hepatic fibrosis in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD), including steatotic liver disease (SLD). MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this prospective study (September 2024 to May 2025), consecutive patients with CLD underwent liver MRI, including MR-elastography, PDFF, T1, extracellular volume fraction (ECV), and T1ρ mapping. MRE-based liver stiffness was used as the reference to assess the diagnostic performance of the MRI-derived mapping parameters. MR-elastography-based liver stiffness thresholds for significant fibrosis (≥ F2) were set at > 3.66 kPa for participants without hepatic steatosis (PDFF ≤ 5%), and > 3.14 kPa for participants with hepatic steatosis (PDFF > 5%). The t-test, Spearman's correlation, and the ROC analysis were applied.
resultsOne hundred twelve CLD participants were included (mean age, 48 ± 16 years; 53 participants with hepatic steatosis). All assessed quantitative mapping parameters were significantly increased in participants with significant fibrosis than in those without (e.g., T1ρ: 110 ± 15 vs 92 ± 6 ms, p < 0.001). T1ρ revealed a moderate to strong correlation with MR-elastography-based stiffness, superior to T1 and ECV (entire cohort: r = 0.75 [T1ρ] vs 0.49 [native T1] vs 0.68 [ECV]; participants with hepatic steatosis: r = 0.67 [T1ρ] vs 0.32 [native T1] vs 0.62 [ECV]; p < 0.05 in each case, respectively). T1ρ provided the highest diagnostic performance for diagnosing significant fibrosis (in the entire cohort: AUC 0.90 [T1ρ] vs 0.73, p < 0.001 [native T1], vs 0.81, p = 0.05 [ECV]; in participants with hepatic steatosis: AUC 0.87 [T1ρ] vs 0.67, p = 0.03 [native T1], vs 0.79, p = 0.047 [ECV], p values are given vs T1ρ).
conclusionHepatic T1ρ might be a more accurate marker of hepatic fibrosis in CLD, including SLD, compared to hepatic native T1 and ECV mapping. KEY POINTS: Question Accurate non-invasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis remains challenging, particularly in the presence of steatosis, where MRI biomarkers such as native T1 and ECV fraction are limited. Findings T1ρ mapping outperformed native T1 and ECV for identifying significant fibrosis and maintained robust accuracy in the presence of hepatic steatosis. Clinical relevance T1ρ mapping offers a robust, non-invasive MRI biomarker for assessing hepatic fibrosis across the full spectrum of CLD, including SLD, with superior accuracy to native T1 and ECV and reduced influence from hepatic fat infiltration.
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.