ArticleEuropean radiology2026
A novel multi-parameter MRI-based model for identification of high-risk metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis.
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.
- Nanotechnology-enabled precision strategies for bladder cancer: from in vitro diagnostics to in vivo therapy.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and evaluate a novel multi-parameter MRI-based model (EFT1) for identifying high-risk metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) to improve diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective study included 118 patients (55 male; 48 ± 13 years) with hepatic steatosis and metabolic risk factors. Among these, 80 patients were classified as having high-risk MASH. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), T1 mapping, chemical-shift encoded MRI for quantification of proton density fat fraction (PDFF) and R2* were performed, followed by liver biopsy. MRI parameters were analyzed and correlated with histological features. The EFT1 model was developed using logistic regression and full subset regression analysis on a training cohort (70%) and validated on a test cohort (30%). The performance of the model was compared with traditional scoring systems.
resultsSignificant differences were observed in MRE, PDFF, and T1 between high-risk MASH and non-high-risk MASH groups. The EFT1 model, combining MRE, PDFF, and T1 showed strong diagnostic performance in both training (AUC 0.995, 95% CI 0.985-1.000) and test cohorts (AUC 0.995, 95% CI 0.979-1.000). At the optimal cut-off value of -0.431, the model achieved high sensitivity (98.2% training, 95.7% test) and specificity (96.3% training, 100% test). The EFT1 model outperformed traditional scoring systems (FIB-4, APRI, GPR) and showed comparable performance to the MAST score in identifying high-risk MASH.
conclusionThe novel EFT1 model demonstrates reasonable performance in non-invasive identification of high-risk MASH patients compared to other models, achieving an appropriate balance between sensitivity and specificity. CLINICAL
trial registrationThis study is registered with Chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2400094017). KEY POINTS: Question Current non-invasive scoring systems for high-risk MASH have limitations. A novel multi-parameter MRI-based model is proposed to improve diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. Findings A novel multi-parameter MRI-based model (EFT1), incorporating MRE, PDFF, and T1 mapping, demonstrated higher accuracy in identifying high-risk MASH with an AUC of 0.995. Clinical relevance The EFT1 model provides a highly accurate, non-invasive tool for early identification of high-risk MASH, facilitating timely intervention and personalized treatment strategies, potentially reducing disease progression and improving patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40839133What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.