Cited by 131Liver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsNMR spectroscopy and applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Fatty Liver: Chemical Shift Phas and Suppression Magnetic Resonance Imaging Techniques in Animals, Phantoms, and Humans

MITCHELL, DONALD G., KIM, ILYOUNG, CHANG, THOMAS S., VINITSKI, SIMON, SAPONARO, STEPHEN A., EHRLICH, SAUNDRA M., RIFKIN, MAITHEW D., RUBIN, RAPHAEL·1991·Investigative Radiology

Abstract

In vitro animal and human models were used to evaluate the potential of chemical shift magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for assessing fatty liver. Phantoms of varying fat content were created from mayonnaise-agar preparations. Fatty liver was induced in eight rats by feeding them ethanol for three to six weeks (36% of total calories), whereas eight control rats were fed a normal diet. T1-weighted in-phase and opposed-phase MR images were obtained of the phantoms animals, and 28 human subjects. Additional images obtained in animals included long TR images with in-phase and opposed-phase technique, and hybrid chemical shift water and fat suppression. The rats were killed and histologic status was graded blindly by a hepatopathologist as normal, mild, moderate, or severe fatty change, for correlation with MR grading. Quantitative analysis of MR images included fat signal fraction for animals, and relative signal decrease between in-phase and opposed-phase images for phantom and human data. Phantom in-phase signal increased linearly with respect to fat content, whereas opposed-phase signal decreased linearly. MRI and histologic grading of rat livers were highly correlated, especially when based on water suppression images (r = 0.91, P = .0001). Opposed-phase images were also highly correlated, while fat suppression images were less effective. There was no overlap between MR-derived fat fractions for control (2.6%-5.7%) versus ethanol-fed rats (7.7%-17.9%, P = .0002). Human liver considered to be fatty by visual inspection (n = 8) had higher relative signal decrease than nonfatty liver (n = 22) (P less than .001). Phantom, animal, and human data demonstrate that comparison of T1-weighted in-phase and opposed-phase images is both practical and sensitive in the detection and grading of fatty liver.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00004424-199112000-00002

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
MITCHELL, D. G., KIM, I., CHANG, T. S., VINITSKI, S., SAPONARO, S. A., EHRLICH, S. M., RIFKIN, M. D., & RUBIN, R.
Affiliations
Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (US)
Venue
Investigative Radiology
Published
1991-12
Volume
26
Issue
12
Pages
1041-1052
ISSN
0020-9996 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2525830412
Cited by
131
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
FWCI
0.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Investigative Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › NMR spectroscopy and applications
Keywords
hepatic steatosis, chemical shift MRI, fat fraction quantification, T1-weighted imaging, fat suppression
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Animals, Fatty Liver, Fatty Liver, Alcoholic, Female, Humans, Liver, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Structural, Rats, Inbred Strains, Rats

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