ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Quantitative equivalence of Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA)-2023- and QIBA-2020-compliant MR elastography protocols for liver stiffness assessment.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMagnetic resonance elastography (MRE) has become an essential noninvasive tool for quantitative assessment of liver stiffness and fibrosis staging, particularly in patients with steatotic liver disease. To enhance standardization and reproducibility, the Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) released an updated liver MRE profile in 2023, replacing the previous 2020 version. However, the quantitative continuity between these two protocol versions, particularly for longitudinal liver stiffness measurements, has not been sufficiently validated. This study aimed to evaluate the quantitative equivalence and clinical utility of a QIBA-2023-compliant MRE protocol through direct comparison with the conventional QIBA-2020-compliant protocol in the same subjects, with emphasis on longitudinal liver stiffness assessment and image quality.
methodsThis retrospective study included 130 consecutive patients who underwent liver MRE in 2024. Each patient was examined using both the conventional QIBA-2020-compliant protocol and the updated QIBA-2023-compliant protocol during a single imaging session. Liver stiffness values were compared using Spearman correlation, Bland-Altman analysis, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Measurement variability and repeatability were evaluated with reference to QIBA-defined repeatability metrics. Image quality was evaluated by comparing region-of-interest (ROI) size and measurable liver parenchymal area excluding low-confidence (cross-hatched) regions.
resultsMean liver stiffness values were 3.62 ± 1.81 kPa for the conventional protocol and 3.69 ± 1.94 kPa for the updated protocol, with a very strong correlation (r = 0.98, p < 0.001) and excellent agreement (ICC = 0.988). Bland-Altman analysis showed a minimal mean bias of 0.07 kPa with 95% limits of agreement from - 0.48 to 0.63 kPa, which were within established MRE repeatability thresholds. Although the difference between protocols reached statistical significance, the absolute difference was not clinically meaningful. The updated protocol produced significantly larger ROIs and a greater measurable liver parenchymal area, consistent with reduced imaging artifacts and improved image quality.
conclusionsThe QIBA-2023-compliant MRE protocol demonstrates quantitative equivalence to the conventional QIBA-2020 protocol while offering improved artifact suppression and expanded measurable liver parenchyma. These findings support use of the updated protocol for reliable longitudinal liver stiffness assessment without compromising diagnostic performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41931134What 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.