ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Comparison of hepatic iron quantification by MRI between 1.5 and 3 T, using different methods and conversion formulas.
Article in European radiology, 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
objectivesThis study aimed to compare liver iron concentration (LIC) estimates obtained from 1.5-T and 3-T MRI systems, using multiple quantification methods. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy-eight participants from two centers were prospectively included and underwent liver MRI scans at both 1.5 T and 3 T. Two multi-echo gradient recalled echo (ME-GRE) sequences-one vendor-specific and one non-specific-were used to quantify liver fat and iron. Proton density fat fraction (PDFF) and R2* were obtained from vendor sequences via map reconstruction, and from non-specific sequences using MRQuantif software. LIC was derived from R2* using European or American calibrations, but also from signal intensity ratio (SIR) method at 1.5 T. Statistical analysis included linear correlation regression and Bland-Altman plots to evaluate agreement between LIC values across field strengths and methods.
resultsFor LIC calculated from R2*, both sequences demonstrated a strong correlation between 1.5-T and 3-T results, with R = 0.84 and 0.99 for the vendor and MRQuantif methods, respectively. The LIC bias between field strengths remained low (± 7% maximum) when using the same calibration group or when comparing, at 1.5 T, the SIR method and European calibrations. However, this bias increased to 26% when comparing LIC values obtained from American and European calibrations.
conclusionLIC values are highly comparable when similar calibration methods are applied, but notable bias arises when comparing results from different calibration groups. For clinical convenience, a rapid and intermediate LIC (in µmol/g) can be estimated by dividing R2*values by 2 at 1.5 T or by 4 at 3 T. KEY POINTS: Question There are differences in the estimation of liver iron concentration depending on the magnetic field, method and calibration used. Findings Liver iron concentration (LIC) reproducibility is high across methods or between 1.5-T and 3-T devices-only when identical calibration groups are used. Clinical relevance LIC determination from R2 is highly reproducible, but the conversion formula must align with the referring physicians' standard references.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41014349What 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.