The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
T1 independent, T2* corrected MRI with accurate spectral modeling for quantification of fat: Validation in a fat‐water‐SPIO phantom
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: To validate a T 1‐independent, T 2*‐corrected fat quantification technique that uses accurate spectral modeling of fat using a homogeneous fat‐water‐SPIO phantom over physiologically expected ranges of fat percentage and T 2* decay in the presence of iron overload. Materials and Methods: A homogeneous gel phantom consisting of vials with known fat‐fractions and iron concentrations is described. Fat‐fraction imaging was performed using a multiecho chemical shift‐based fat‐water separation method (IDEAL), and various reconstructions were performed to determine the impact of T 2* correction and accurate spectral modeling. Conventional two‐point Dixon (in‐phase/out‐of‐phase) imaging and MR spectroscopy were performed for comparison with known fat‐fractions. Results: The best agreement with known fat‐fractions over the full range of iron concentrations was found when T 2* correction and accurate spectral modeling were used. Conventional two‐point Dixon imaging grossly underestimated fat‐fraction for all T 2* values, but particularly at higher iron concentrations. Conclusion: This work demonstrates the necessity of T 2* correction and accurate spectral modeling of fat to accurately quantify fat using MRI. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2009;30:1215–1222. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2004) · Seminars in Liver Disease · doi:10.1055/s-2004-823098 · Cited by 481
Johnson, N. A., Walton, D. W., Sachinwalla, T., Thompson, C. H., Smith, K., Ruell, P. A., Stannard, S. R., & George, J. (2008) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.22220 · Cited by 164
Cited by
Quantification of liver fat content with CT and MRI: state of the art
Starekova, J., Hernando, D., Pickhardt, P. J., & Reeder, S. B. (2021) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2021204288 · Cited by 320
Patel, N. S., Doycheva, I., Peterson, M. R., Hooker, J., Kisselva, T., Schnabl, B., Seki, E., Sirlin, C. B., & Loomba, R. (2015) · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2014.08.039 · Cited by 173
Hogrel, J.-Y., Barnouin, Y., Azzabou, N., Butler-Browne, G., Voit, T., Moraux, A., Leroux, G., Behin, A., McPhee, J. S., & Carlier, P. G. (2015) · AGE · doi:10.1007/s11357-015-9798-5 · Cited by 127
Repeatability and reproducibility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the liver
Bachtiar, V., Kelly, M. D., Wilman, H. R., Jacobs, J., Newbould, R., Kelly, C. J., Gyngell, M. L., Groves, K. E., McKay, A., Herlihy, A. H., et al. (2019) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0214921 · Cited by 117
Liver Fat Quantification by Dual-echo MR Imaging Outperforms Traditional Histopathological Analysis
Fischer, M. A., Raptis, D. A., Montani, M., Graf, R., Clavien, P.-A., Nanz, D., Alkadhi, H., & Scheffel, H. (2012) · Academic Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.acra.2012.05.009 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Hines, C. D. G., Yu, H., Shimakawa, A., McKenzie, C. A., Brittain, J. H., & Reeder, S. B.
- Venue
- Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-10-23
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1215-1222
- ISSN
- 1053-1807 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-2586
- OpenAlex
- W2064245412
- Cited by
- 221
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 8.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: T1 independent, T2* corrected MRI with accurate spectral modeling for quantification of fat: Validation in a fat‐water‐SPIO phantom. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jmri.21957
- The paper
- Hines, C. D. G., Yu, H., Shimakawa, A., McKenzie, C. A., Brittain, J. H., & Reeder, S. B. (2009). T1 independent, T2* corrected MRI with accurate spectral modeling for quantification of fat: Validation in a fat‐water‐SPIO phantom. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21957
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.