Cited by 90Ultrasound Imaging and ElastographyLiver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications

Diffusion-weighted MRI-based Virtual Elastography for the Assessment of Liver Fibrosis

Kromrey, Marie-Luise, Le Bihan, Denis, Ichikawa, Shintaro, Motosugi, Utaroh·2020·Radiology

Abstract

Background Diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI-based elastography has recently been proposed for noninvasive liver fibrosis staging but requires evaluation in a larger number of patients. Purpose To compare DW MRI and MR elastography for the assessment of liver fibrosis. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, patients underwent MR elastography and DW MRI between November 2017 and April 2018. Shear modulus measured by MR elastography (μ MRE ) was obtained in each patient from regions of interest placed on liver stiffness maps by two independent readers. Shifted apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was calculated from DW MRI ( b = 200 and 1500 sec/mm 2 ) and converted to DW MRI-based virtual shear modulus (μ Diff ). MRI-based liver fibrosis stages were estimated from μ MRE and μ Diff values (F0-F4) and serum fibrosis markers were assessed. Statistical analyses included Bland-Altman plots, Bayesian prediction, and receiver operating characteristic analyses. Results Seventy-four patients (mean age, 68 years ± 9 [standard deviation]; 45 men) were evaluated. Interreader coefficient of reproducibility was 0.86 kPa for DW MRI and 1.2 kPa for MR elastography. Strong correlation between shifted ADC and μ MRE was observed ( r 2 = 0.81; P MRE and μ Diff values (mean difference, -0.02 kPa ± 0.88; P Diff showed better performance in discriminating fibrosis stages F0-F2 from F3-F4 (AUC, 0.79; 95% confidence interval: 0.69, 0.90), whereas serum markers showed slightly better results for…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.2020191498

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • This approach was first evaluated and validated for liver-fibrosis staging.

    “This approach was first evaluated and validated for liver-fibrosis staging (Kromrey et al., 2020; Le Bihan et al., 2017).”

    From 40 Years of diffusion MRI in the brain: From history to emerging frontiers (2026) · cites this paper as Kromrey et al., 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kromrey, M.-L., Le Bihan, D., Ichikawa, S., & Motosugi, U.
Affiliations
Kyoto University (JP)
Venue
Radiology
Published
2020-04
Volume
295
Issue
1
Pages
127-135
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W3005574293
Cited by
90
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3
FWCI
3.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Ultrasound Imaging and Elastography
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Liver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Keywords
diffusion-weighted imaging, liver fibrosis, magnetic resonance elastography, shear modulus, apparent diffusion coefficient, liver stiffness, noninvasive fibrosis staging, serum fibrosis markers, Bayesian forecasting, receiver operating characteristic, liver cirrhosis, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, chronic hepatitis C, chronic hepatitis B
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Humans, Liver Cirrhosis, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Elasticity Imaging Techniques, Multimodal Imaging

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