ArticleScientific reports2026
A comparison study to assess U-Net driven volumetric versus single-slice analysis and MRI sequences with different volume coverage to detect renal sinus fat in people with and without diabetes.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Monitoring the accumulation of renal sinus fat (RSF) by non-invasive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) holds promise for assessing the risk of nephropathy in individuals with diabetes. Automatic image segmentation using dedicated U-Net models was deployed for accurate quantification of RSF content and renal parenchyma (RP) from different MRI protocols. Therefore, the accuracy of volumetric vs single-slice analysis for quantifying RP and RSF was assessed. Further, the resulting kidney structures obtained from a whole-body MR images acquired with partial kidney coverage were compared to high-resolution MRI protocol with full-kidney coverage, in people with and without diabetes. Quantification of kidney structures showed accurate estimates of both RP and RSF volume across people with different glycaemic status and imaging protocols. A systematic overestimation of the RSF-to-RP ratio was observed when using the conventional single-slice assessment, supporting the need for volumetric kidney analysis, particularly for small structures such as the RSF. Moreover, MR images with interslice-gaps were found to substantially underestimate RSF content, highlighting the need for careful evaluation and correction of estimates from small kidney structures when data are pooled from different MR imaging protocols. In summary, automatic image segmentation enabled us to determine differences in the precision of RSF content obtained using different methodological approaches and MRI sequences with different kidney coverage.
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.