ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2026
Highly Reproducible, Vendor-Agnostic, Motion-Insensitive Liver PDFF Mapping at 0.55T, 1.5T, and 3T.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Free-Breathing Fat Quantification Using a Phase Error-Corrected Cartesian Acquisition With Spiral Profile Ordering.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Highly Reproducible, Vendor-Agnostic, Motion-Insensitive Liver PDFF Mapping at 0.55T, 1.5T, and 3T.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop and validate a vendor-agnostic, motion-insensitive proton-density fat-fraction (PDFF) quantification method.
methodsFlip-angle-modulated (FAM) 2D chemical-shift-encoded (CSE) MRI for PDFF quantification was implemented in both the vendor-agnostic platform Pulseq ("Pulseq-FAM") and one vendor-specific platform ("GE-specific FAM"). These implementations were distributed to four sites with twelve MR systems of three vendors (Siemens/GE/Philips) and field strengths (0.55T/1.5T/3T). A sequentially-shipped 16-vial phantom (PDFF = 0%-30%/T1
resultsIn the multi-center study, Pulseq-FAM showed reduced T1-bias and between-system variability versus 3D-CSE in phantom PDFF measurements, and free-breathing feasibility in volunteers. In the single-site volunteer study (N = 57), Pulseq-FAM improved image quality and motion artifacts versus 3D-CSE (p < 0.01). Pulseq-FAM showed excellent agreement with 3D-CSE (95% limits-of-agreement (LoA) = 3.4% PDFF) and GE-specific FAM (LoA = 2.0%). Pulseq-FAM showed excellent repeatability (repeatability coefficient (RC) = 1.6% PDFF) and between-field-strength reproducibility (reproducibility coefficient (RDC) = 2.4%) versus 3D-CSE (RC = 2.7%/RDC = 3.4%; differences p < 0.05).
conclusionPulseq-FAM enables accurate, reproducible, vendor-agnostic, and motion-insensitive PDFF quantification in adults and children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.