Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 329

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of Hepatic Steatosis in Patients Undergoing Liver Resection: Comparison of US, CT, T1-weighted Dual-Echo MR Imaging, and Point-resolved1H MR Spectroscopy

van Werven, Jochem R., Marsman, Hendrik A., Nederveen, Aart J., Smits, Nico J., ten Kate, Fiebo J., van Gulik, Thomas M., Stoker, Jaap·2010·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT), T1-weighted dual-echo magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and point-resolved proton (hydrogen 1[(1)H]) MR spectroscopy in the assessment of hepatic steatosis in patients undergoing liver resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board, and patients gave written informed consent. US, CT, T1-weighted MR imaging, and (1)H MR spectroscopy were performed preoperatively in 46 patients. Imaging results were correlated (Spearman correlation coefficient) with histopathologic analysis of results of intraoperative liver biopsies. To assess differences between groups, one-way analysis of variance was used. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each imaging modality by using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, with a histopathologic cut-off value of 5% macrovesicular steatosis. Differences in sensitivity and specificity were assessed by means of McNemar analysis. RESULTS: At histopathologic examination, 23 patients had no (0%-5%) macrovesicular steatosis, 11 had mild (5%-33%), nine had moderate (33%-66%), and three had severe (>66%). MR imaging and (1)H MR spectroscopic measurements of hepatic fat had stronger correlation with histopathologic steatosis assessment (r = 0.85, P < .001 and r = 0.86, P < .001, respectively) than did US (r = 0.66, P < .001) and CT (r = -0.55, P < .001). Only T1-weighted MR imaging and (1)H MR spectroscopy showed differences across steatosis grades: none versus mild (P = .001 for both), mild versus moderate (P < .001 for both), and moderate versus severe (P = .04 and .01, respectively). Sensitivity of US, CT, T1-weighted MR imaging, and (1)H MR spectroscopy was 65% (13 of 20), 74% (17 of 23), 90% (19 of 21), and 91% (21 of 23), respectively, and specificity was 77% (17 of 23), 70% (14 of 20), 91% (20 of 22), and 87% (20 of 23), respectively. CONCLUSION: In contrast to US and CT, T1-weighted MR imaging and (1)H MR spectroscopy strongly correlate with histopathologic steatosis assessment and are able to demonstrate differences across steatosis grades. T1-weighted dual-echo MR imaging and (1)H MR spectroscopy had the best diagnostic accuracy in depicting hepatic steatosis.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.10091790

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 47 references

Cited by

See all 329

Metadata

Authors
van Werven, J. R., Marsman, H. A., Nederveen, A. J., Smits, N. J., ten Kate, F. J., van Gulik, T. M., & Stoker, J.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2010-07
Volume
256
Issue
1
Pages
159-168
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2128113634
Cited by
329
References
47
FWCI
10.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Assessment of Hepatic Steatosis in Patients Undergoing Liver Resection: Comparison of US, CT, T1-weighted Dual-Echo MR Imaging, and Point-resolved1H MR Spectroscopy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.10091790
The paper
van Werven, J. R., Marsman, H. A., Nederveen, A. J., Smits, N. J., ten Kate, F. J., van Gulik, T. M., & Stoker, J. (2010). Assessment of Hepatic Steatosis in Patients Undergoing Liver Resection: Comparison of US, CT, T1-weighted Dual-Echo MR Imaging, and Point-resolved1H MR Spectroscopy. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10091790

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.