ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Quantitative assessment of renal and perirenal adipose tissue distribution at 5 T: a feasibility study.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. 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
purposeTo evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of Fat Analysis Calculation Technique (FACT), a multi-echo Dixon-like sequence, for quantifying renal and perirenal adipose distribution at 5 T.
methodsAccuracy of FACT-based Proton density fat fraction (FACT-PDFF) was assessed by comparing with magnetic resonance spectroscopy-based PDFF (MRS-PDFF) in phantom study. In vivo FACT images from 24 volunteers (13 males and 11 females) without kidney-related diseases were acquired at 5 T and evaluated independently by two readers. Repeatability of FACT-PDFF was assessed through three consecutive scans. Spearman correlation examined associations between averaged FACT-PDFF and clinical characteristics. Linear regression, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and Bland-Altman plots assessed consistency and deviations between fat quantification methods and field strengths. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared image quality scores between radiologists. The paired t test compared FACT-PDFF differences across all regions of interest between bilateral kidneys and between renal cortex and medulla. Analysis of covariance compared gender-related renal fat differences.
resultsIn phantom study, FACT-PDFF showed excellent agreement with MRS-PDFF at both fields (ICCs ≥ 0.995). Linear regression revealed strong correlations (R² ≥ 0.998), and Bland-Altman plots indicated minimal bias. In clinical study, FACT images achieved high quality. Repeatability was excellent (ICCs: 0.837–0.991; CVs: 0.78–4.49%). Significant PDFF differences existed between bilateral kidneys (cortex/medulla: P < 0.001; sinus fat: P = 0.003), cortex vs. medulla (P < 0.001), and genders (right cortex, left medulla, and left perirenal fat: P ≤ 0.044). PDFF was correlated positively with age, weight, body mass index, waist/hip circumference, and waist-to-height ratio (r = 0.412–0.797, P ≤ 0.046).
conclusionsFACT at 5 T reliably quantifies renal and perirenal adipose distribution. It can offer a non-invasive alternative to biopsy, and may facilitate the understanding of renal adipose distribution and its clinical associations.
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.