Evidence mapPaperPMID 24136736Full record

Trial reportJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2014

Inter-examination precision of magnitude-based MRI for estimation of segmental hepatic proton density fat fraction in obese subjects.

Lindsey M Negrete, Michael S Middleton, Lisa Clark, Tanya Wolfson, Anthony C Gamst, Jessica Lam, Chris Changchien, Ivan M Deyoung-Dominguez, Gavin Hamilton, Rohit Loomba and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lindsey M NegreteLiver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, California, USA; Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Michael S Middleton
Lisa Clark
Tanya Wolfson
Anthony C Gamst
Jessica Lam
Chris Changchien
Ivan M Deyoung-Dominguez
Gavin Hamilton
Rohit Loomba
Jeffrey Schwimmer
Claude B Sirlin
University of California, San Diego · USRady Children's Hospital-San Diego · US

Funding

San Diego Export: An University Community Partnership E*P60MD000220 · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO · 2002 to 2005
$4.0M
Training Clinical Scientists in Radiological ImagingT32EB005970 · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · 2025 to 2025
$92k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000100NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR000100NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB005970NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK075128NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK088925NIMHD NIH HHS P60 MD000220NIMHD NIH HHS P60 MD00220
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo prospectively describe magnitude-based multi-echo gradient-echo hepatic proton density fat fraction (PDFF) inter-examination precision at 3 Tesla (T). MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this prospective, Institutional Review Board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliant study, written informed consent was obtained from 29 subjects (body mass indexes > 30 kg/m2). Three 3T MRI examinations were obtained over 75-90 min. Segmental, lobar, and whole liver PDFF were estimated (using three, four, five, or six echoes) by magnitude-based multi-echo MRI in colocalized regions of interest. For estimate (using three, four, five, or six echoes), at each anatomic level (segmental, lobar, whole liver), three inter-examination precision metrics were computed: intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), standard deviation (SD), and range.

resultsMagnitude-based PDFF estimates using each reconstruction method showed excellent inter-examination precision for each segment (ICC ≥ 0.992; SD ≤ 0.66%; range ≤ 1.24%), lobe (ICC ≥ 0.998; SD ≤ 0.34%; range ≤ 0.64%), and the whole liver (ICC = 0.999; SD ≤ 0.24%; range ≤ 0.45%). Inter-examination precision was unaffected by whether PDFF was estimated using three, four, five, or six echoes.

conclusionMagnitude-based PDFF estimation shows high inter-examination precision at segmental, lobar, and whole liver anatomic levels, supporting its use in clinical care or clinical trials. The results of this study suggest that longitudinal hepatic PDFF change greater than 1.6% is likely to represent signal rather than noise.

Indexed as

AdiposityAdolescentAdultChildFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedLiverMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedObesityObserver VariationProton Magnetic Resonance SpectroscopyReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificityinter-examination precisionmagnitude-based MRIPDFFproton density fat fractionsteatosis

Identifiers

PMID24136736
PMCPMC3984359
OpenAlexW2138525610

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.