CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 60Ultrasound Imaging and ElastographyAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsPancreatitis Pathology and Treatment

Magnetic resonance elastography of the pancreas: Measurement reproducibility and relationship with age

Open access
Kolipaka, Arunark, Schroeder, Samuel, Mo, Xiaokui, Shah, Zarine, Hart, Phil A., Conwell, Darwin L.·2017·Magnetic Resonance Imaging
DOI 10.1016/j.mri.2017.04.015PMC PMC5581721
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose To determine magnetic resonance elastography (MRE)-derived stiffness of pancreas in healthy volunteers with emphasis on: 1) short term and midterm repeatability; and 2) variance as a function of age. Methods Pancreatic MRE was performed on 22 healthy volunteers (age range:20-64years) in a 3T-scanner. For evaluation of reproducibility of stiffness estimates, the scans were repeated per volunteer on the same day (short term) and one month apart (midterm). MRE wave images were analyzed using 3D inversion to estimate the stiffness of overall pancreas and different anatomic regions (i.e., head, neck, body, and tail). Concordance and Spearman correlation tests were performed to determine reproducibility of stiffness measurements and relationship to age. Results A strong concordance correlation (ρ c=0.99; p-value<0.001) was found between short term and midterm repeatability pancreatic stiffness measurements. Additionally, the pancreatic stiffness significantly increased with age with good Spearman correlation coefficient (all ρ>0.81; p<0.001). The older age group (>45yrs) had significantly higher stiffness compared to the younger group (≤45yrs) (p<0.001). No significant difference (p>0.05) in stiffness measurements was observed between different anatomical regions of pancreas, except neck stiffness was slightly lower (p<0.012) compared to head and overall pancreas at month 1. Conclusion MRE-derived pancreatic stiffness measurements are highly reproducible in the short and midterm and increase linearly with age in healthy volunteers. Further studies are needed to examine these effects in patients with various pancreatic diseases to understand potential clinical applications.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.mri.2017.04.015

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The stiffness of different pancreatic regions ranges between 1.15 ± 0.17 kPa and 2.09 ± 0.33 kPa.

    “For example, the stiffness of different pancreatic regions ranges between 1.15 ± 0.17 kPa and 2.09 ± 0.33 33,34 .”

    From Soft tissue-mimicking hydrogel stiffness modulates polarisation of human monocyte-derived macrophages (2025) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Results report mean pancreatic stiffness ranges of 1.13–1.2 kPa in younger healthy volunteers and 1.94–2 kPa in older healthy volunteers, across regions and the overall pancreas. These broadly support the claimed range, but our copy does not give the exact endpoints 1.15 ± 0.17 and 2.09 ± 0.33 kPa; the sentence also leaves out the age distinction underlying the range. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. [1]Zhu L Pickle LW Ghosh K Naishadham D Portier K Chen HS Kim HJ Zou ZH Cucinelli J Kohler B Edwards BK King J Feuer EJ Jemal A Predicting US- and state-level cancer counts for the current calendar year Cancer 2012 118 4 1100 1109 22228583
  2. [2]Chen HS Portier K Ghosh K Naishadham D Kim HJ Zhu L Pickle LW Krapcho M Scoppa S Jemal A Feuer EJ Predicting US- and state-level cancer counts for the current calendar year Cancer 2012 118 4 1091 1099 22228565 PMC3277448
  3. [3]Camara SN Yin T Yang M Li X Gong Q Zhou J Zhao G Yang ZY Aroun T Kuete M Ramdany S Camara AK Diallo AT Feng Z Ning X Xiong JX Tao J Qin Q Zhou W Cui J Huang M Guo Y Gou SM Wang B Liu T Olivier OE Conde T Cisse M Magassouba AS Ballah S Keita NL Souare IS Toure A Traore S Balde AK Keita N Camara ND Emmanuel D Wu HS Wang CY High risk factors of pancreatic carcinoma J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci 2016 36 3 295 304 27376795
  4. [4]Conwell DL Lee LS Yadav D Longnecker DS Miller FH Mortele KJ Levy MJ Kwon R Lieb JG Stevens T Toskes PP Gardner TB Gelrud A Wu BU Forsmark CE Vege SS American Pancreatic Association Practice Guidelines in Chronic Pancreatitis Evidence-Based Report on Diagnostic Guidelines Pancreas 2014 43 8 1143 1162 25333398 PMC5434978
  5. [5]Janssen J Schlorer E Greiner L EUS elastography of the pancreas: feasibility and pattern description of the normal pancreas, chronic pancreatitis, and focal pancreatic lesions Gastrointest Endosc 2007 65 7 971 978 17531630
  6. [6]Iglesias-Garcia J Lindkvist B Larino-Noia J Dominguez-Munoz JE The role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in relation to other imaging modalities in the differential diagnosis between mass forming chronic pancreatitis, autoimmune pancreatitis and ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma Revista Espanola De Enfermedades Digestivas 2012 104 6 315 321 22738702
  7. [7]Witt H Apte MV Keim V Wilson JS Chronic pancreatitis: challenges and advances in pathogenesis, genetics, diagnosis, and therapy Gastroenterology 2007 132 4 1557 1573 17466744
  8. [8]Janssen J Papavassiliou I Effect of Aging and Diffuse Chronic Pancreatitis on Pancreas Elasticity Evaluated using Semiquantitative EUS Elastography Ultraschall in Der Medizin 2014 35 3 253 258 24327468
  9. [9]Kenyhercz WE Raterman B Illapani VS Dowell J Mo X White RD Kolipaka A Quantification of aortic stiffness using magnetic resonance elastography: Measurement reproducibility, pulse wave velocity comparison, changes over cardiac cycle, and relationship with age Magn Reson Med 2015 PMC4676954 26096227
  10. [10]Kolipaka A Araoz PA Mcgee KP Manduca A Ehman RL Magnetic Resonance Elastography as a Method for the Assessment of Effective Myocardial Stiffness Throughout the Cardiac Cycle Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 2010 64 3 862 870 20578052 PMC3035166
  11. [11]Kolipaka A Woodrum D Araoz PA Ehman RL MR elastography of the in vivo abdominal aorta: a feasibility study for comparing aortic stiffness between hypertensives and normotensives J Magn Reson Imaging 2012 35 3 582 586 22045617 PMC3401065
  12. [12]Sack I Beierbach B Hamhaber U Klatt D Braun J Non-invasive measurement of brain viscoelasticity using magnetic resonance elastography NMR Biomed 2008 21 3 265 271 17614101
  13. [13]Sinkus R Siegmann K Xydeas T Tanter M Claussen C Fink M MR elastography of breast lesions: understanding the solid/liquid duality can improve the specificity of contrast-enhanced MR mammography Magn Reson Med 2007 58 1135 1144 17969009
  14. [14]Wassenaar PA Eleswarpu CN Schroeder SA Mo X Raterman BD White RD Kolipaka A Measuring age-dependent myocardial stiffness across the cardiac cycle using MR elastography: A reproducibility study Magn Reson Med 2016 75 4 1586 1593 26010456 PMC4666827
  15. [15]da Silveira JS Scansen BA Wassenaar PA Raterman B Eleswarpu C Jin N Mo X White RD Bonagura JD Kolipaka A Quantification of myocardial stiffness using magnetic resonance elastography in right ventricular hypertrophy: initial feasibility in dogs Magn Reson Imaging 2016 34 1 26 34 26471513 PMC4691404
  16. [16]Klatt D Asbach P Rump J Papazoglou S Somasundaram R Modrow J Braun J Sack I In vivo determination of hepatic stiffness using steady-state free precession magnetic resonance elastography Invest Radiol 2006 41 12 841 848 17099421
  17. [17]Venkatesh SK Yin M Ehman RL Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: technique, analysis, and clinical applications J Magn Reson Imaging 2013 37 3 544 555 23423795 PMC3579218
  18. [18]Yin M Talwalkar JA Glaser KJ Manduca A Grimm RC Rossman PJ Fidler JL Ehman RL Assessment of hepatic fibrosis with magnetic resonance elastography Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2007 5 10 1207 1213 e1202 17916548 PMC2276978
  19. [19]Yin M Glaser KJ Talwalkar JA Chen J Manduca A Ehman RL Hepatic MR Elastography: Clinical Performance in a Series of 1377 Consecutive Examinations Radiology 2016 278 1 114 124 26162026 PMC4688072
  20. [20]Chamarthi SK Raterman B Mazumder R Michaels A Oza VM Hanje J Bolster B Jin N White RD Kolipaka A Rapid acquisition technique for MR elastography of the liver Magn Reson Imaging 2014 32 6 679 683 24637083 PMC4175984
  21. [21]An H Shi Y Guo Q Liu Y Test-retest reliability of 3D EPI MR elastography of the pancreas Clin Radiol 2016 27132114
  22. [22]Shi Y Glaser KJ Venkatesh SK Ben-Abraham EI Ehman RL Feasibility of Using 3D MR Elastography to Determine Pancreatic Stiffness in Healthy Volunteers Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2015 41 2 369 375 24497052 PMC4122650
  23. [23]Itoh Y Takehara Y Kawase T Terashima K Ohkawa Y Hirose Y Koda A Hyodo N Ushio T Hirai Y Yoshizawa N Yamashita S Nasu H Ohishi N Sakahara H Feasibility of Magnetic Resonance Elastography for the Pancreas at 3T Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2016 43 2 384 390 26149267
  24. [24]Dittmann F Tzschatzsch H Hirsch S Barnhill E Braun J Sack I Guo J Tomoelastography of the abdomen: Tissue mechanical properties of the liver, spleen, kidney, and pancreas from single MR elastography scans at different hydration states Magn Reson Med 2016 27699875
  25. [25]Damughatla AR Raterman B Sharkey-Toppen T Jin N Simonetti OP White RD Kolipaka A Quantification of aortic stiffness using MR elastography and its comparison to MRI-based pulse wave velocity J Magn Reson Imaging 2015 41 1 44 51 24243654 PMC4318508
  26. [26]Gruessner RW Sutherland DE Gruessner AC Mortality assessment for pancreas transplants Am J Transplant 2004 4 12 2018 2026 15575904
  27. [27]Schenker P Wunsch A Ertas N Schaeffer M Rump LC Viebahn R Vonend O Long-term results after simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation using donors aged 45 years or older Transpl P 2008 40 4 923 926 18555080
  28. [29]Detlefsen S Sipos B Feyerabend B Kloppel G Pancreatic fibrosis associated with age and ductal papillary hyperplasia Virchows Archiv 2005 447 5 800 805 16021508
  29. [30]Catanzaro R Cuffari B Italia A Marotta F Exploring the metabolic syndrome: Nonalcoholic fatty pancreas disease World J Gastroenterol 2016 22 34 7660 7675 27678349 PMC5016366
  30. [31]van Geenen EJM Smits MM Schreuder TCMA van der Peet DL Bloemena E Mulder CJJ Smoking Is Related to Pancreatic Fibrosis in Humans American Journal of Gastroenterology 2011 106 6 1161 1166 21577244
  31. [32]Mathur A Pitt HA Marine M Saxena R Schmidt CM Howard TJ Nakeeb A Zyromski NJ Lillemoe KD Fatty pancreas: a factor in postoperative pancreatic fistula Ann Surg 2007 246 6 1058 1064 18043111
  32. [33]Manduca A Oliphant TE Dresner MA Mahowald JL Kruse SA Amromin E Felmlee JP Greenleaf JF Ehman RL Magnetic resonance elastography: non-invasive mapping of tissue elasticity Med Image Anal 2001 5 4 237 254 11731304
  33. [34]Tzschatzsch H Guo J Dittmann F Hirsch S Barnhill E Johrens K Braun J Sack I Tomoelastography by multifrequency wave number recovery from time-harmonic propagating shear waves Med Image Anal 2016 30 1 10 26845371

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kolipaka, A., Schroeder, S., Mo, X., Shah, Z., Hart, P. A., & Conwell, D. L.
Affiliations
  • The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Kolipaka, Arunark
ORCID
Venue
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
42
Pages
1-7
ISSN
0730-725X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.mri.2017.04.015
PMC
PMC5581721
OpenAlex
W2611013130
Cited by
60
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3
FWCI
4.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • American Heart Association (13SDG14690027)
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000090)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL124096)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (U01DK108327)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Ultrasound Imaging and Elastography
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
Keywords
magnetic resonance elastography, pancreas, pancreatic stiffness, measurement reproducibility, age-related stiffness, healthy volunteers, 3D inversion, healthy reference values
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Aging, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Pancreas, Reference Values, Reproducibility of Results, Elasticity Imaging Techniques, Young Adult

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