The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Estimation of Hepatic Proton-Density Fat Fraction by Using MR Imaging at 3.0 T
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of several magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-based methods for hepatic proton-density fat fraction (FF) estimation at 3.0 T, with spectroscopy as the reference technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Informed consent was obtained. One hundred sixty-three subjects (39 with known hepatic steatosis, 110 with steatosis risk factors, 14 without risk factors) underwent proton MR spectroscopy and non-T1-weighted gradient-echo MR imaging of the liver. At spectroscopy, the reference FF was determined from frequency-selective measurements of fat and water proton densities. At imaging, FF was calculated by using two-, three-, or six-echo methods, with single-frequency and multifrequency fat signal modeling. The three- and six-echo methods corrected for T2*; the two-echo methods did not. For each imaging method, the fat estimation accuracy was assessed by using linear regression between the imaging FF and spectroscopic FF. Binary classification accuracy of imaging was assessed at four reference spectroscopic thresholds (0.04, 0.06, 0.08, and 0.10 FF). RESULTS: Regression intercept of two-, three-, and six-echo methods were -0.0211, 0.0087, and -0.0062 (P <.001 for all three) without multifrequency modeling and -0.0237 (P <.001), 0.0022, and -0.0007 with multifrequency modeling, respectively. Regression slope of two-, three-, and six-echo methods were 0.8522, 0.8528, and 0.7544 (P <.001 for all three) without multifrequency modeling and 0.9994, 0.9775, and 0.9821 with multifrequency modeling, respectively. Significant deviation of intercept and slope from 0 and 1, respectively, indicated systematic error. Classification accuracy was 82.2%-90.1%, 93.9%-96.3%, and 83.4%-89.6% for two-, three-, and six-echo methods without multifrequency modeling and 88.3%-92.0%, 95.1%-96.3%, and 94.5%-96.3% with multifrequency modeling, respectively, depending on the FF threshold. T2*-corrected (three- and six-echo) multifrequency imaging methods had the overall highest FF estimation and classification accuracy. Among methods without multifrequency modeling, the T2-corrected three-echo method had the highest accuracy. CONCLUSION: Non-T1-weighted MR imaging with T2 correction and multifrequency modeling helps accurately estimate hepatic proton-density FF at 3.0 T.
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
Design and validation of a histological scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease†
Kleiner, D. E., Brunt, E. M., Van Natta, M., Behling, C., Contos, M. J., Cummings, O. W., Ferrell, L. D., Liu, Y., Torbenson, M. S., Unalp‐Arida, A., et al. (2005) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.20701 · Cited by 10,791
A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance
HOCHBERG, Y. (1988) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/75.4.800 · Cited by 4,829
Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis: A Proposal for Grading and Staging The Histological Lesions
Brunt, E. M., Janney, C. G., Di Bisceglie, A. M., Neuschwander-Tetri, B. A., & Bacon, B. R. (1999) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.01377.x · Cited by 3,907
Better Bootstrap Confidence Intervals
Efron, B. (1987) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1987.10478410 · Cited by 3,364
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a spectrum of clinical and pathological severity.
MATTEONI, C., YOUNOSSI, Z., GRAMLICH, T., BOPARAI, N., LIU, Y., & MCCULLOUGH, A. (1999) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/s0016-5085(99)70506-8 · Cited by 3,345
Long-term follow-up of patients with NAFLD and elevated liver enzymes
Ekstedt, M., Franzén, L. E., Mathiesen, U. L., Thorelius, L., Holmqvist, M., Bodemar, G., & Kechagias, S. (2006) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.21327 · Cited by 2,302
Simple proton spectroscopic imaging.
Dixon, W. T. (1984) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.153.1.6089263 · Cited by 2,276
Sampling Variability of Liver Biopsy in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
Ratziu, V., Charlotte, F., Heurtier, A., Gombert, S., Giral, P., Bruckert, E., Grimaldi, A., Capron, F., & Poynard, T. (2005) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2005.03.084 · Cited by 2,106
Improved Method for Accurate and Efficient Quantification of MRS Data with Use of Prior Knowledge
Vanhamme, L., van den Boogaart, A., & Van Huffel, S. (1997) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance · doi:10.1006/jmre.1997.1244 · Cited by 1,627
Independent predictors of liver fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis
Angulo, P., Keach, J. C., Batts, K. P., & Lindor, K. D. (1999) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.510300604 · Cited by 1,610
Cited by
Noninvasive assessment of liver disease in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
Castera, L., Friedrich-Rust, M., & Loomba, R. (2019) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.12.036 · Cited by 1,494
Noureddin, M., Lam, J., Peterson, M. R., Middleton, M., Hamilton, G., Le, T.-A., Bettencourt, R., Changchien, C., Brenner, D. A., Sirlin, C., et al. (2013) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.26455 · Cited by 550
Self-citationLoomba, R., Wolfson, T., Ang, B., Hooker, J., Behling, C., Peterson, M., Valasek, M., Lin, G., Brenner, D., Gamst, A., et al. (2014) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.27362 · Cited by 489
Self-citationGu, J., Liu, S., Du, S., Zhang, Q., Xiao, J., Dong, Q., & Xin, Y. (2019) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-019-06072-4 · Cited by 276
Pirmoazen, A. M., Khurana, A., El Kaffas, A., & Kamaya, A. (2020) · Theranostics · doi:10.7150/thno.40249 · Cited by 165
Metadata
- Authors
- Yokoo, T., Shiehmorteza, M., Hamilton, G., Wolfson, T., Schroeder, M. E., Middleton, M. S., Bydder, M., Gamst, A. C., Kono, Y., Kuo, A., Patton, H. M., Horgan, S., Lavine, J. E., Schwimmer, J. B., & Sirlin, C. B.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2011-03
- Volume
- 258
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 749-759
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W1969486929
- Cited by
- 290
- References
- 53
- FWCI
- 13.62
- 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: Estimation of Hepatic Proton-Density Fat Fraction by Using MR Imaging at 3.0 T. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.10100659
- The paper
- Yokoo, T., Shiehmorteza, M., Hamilton, G., Wolfson, T., Schroeder, M. E., Middleton, M. S., Bydder, M., Gamst, A. C., Kono, Y., Kuo, A., Patton, H. M., Horgan, S., Lavine, J. E., Schwimmer, J. B., & Sirlin, C. B. (2011). Estimation of Hepatic Proton-Density Fat Fraction by Using MR Imaging at 3.0 T. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100659
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.