MRI‐determined liver proton density fat fraction, with MRS validation: Comparison of regions of interest sampling methods in patients with type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the agreement between published magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based regions of interest (ROI) sampling methods using liver mean proton density fat fraction (PDFF) as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, internal review board-approved study was conducted in 35 patients with type 2 diabetes. Liver PDFF was measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) using a stimulated-echo acquisition mode sequence and MRI using a multiecho spoiled gradient-recalled echo sequence at 3.0T. ROI sampling methods reported in the literature were reproduced and liver mean PDFF obtained by whole-liver segmentation was used as the reference standard. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Bland-Altman analysis, repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), and paired t-tests were performed. RESULTS: ICC between MRS and MRI-PDFF was 0.916. Bland-Altman analysis showed excellent intermethod agreement with a bias of -1.5 ± 2.8%. The repeated-measures ANOVA found no systematic variation of PDFF among the nine liver segments. The correlation between liver mean PDFF and ROI sampling methods was very good to excellent (0.873 to 0.975). Paired t-tests revealed significant differences (P < 0.05) with ROI sampling methods that exclusively or predominantly sampled the right lobe. Significant correlations with mean PDFF were found with sampling methods that included higher number of segments, total area equal or larger than 5 cm(2) , or sampled both lobes (P = 0.001, 0.023, and 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSION: MRI-PDFF quantification methods should sample each liver segment in both lobes and include a total surface area equal or larger than 5 cm(2) to provide a close estimate of the liver mean PDFF.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".