T<sub>1</sub> independent, T<sub>2</sub><sup>*</sup> corrected chemical shift based fat–water separation with multi‐peak fat spectral modeling is an accurate and precise measure of hepatic steatosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the precision and accuracy of hepatic fat-fraction measured with a chemical shift-based MRI fat-water separation method, using single-voxel MR spectroscopy (MRS) as a reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 42 patients, two repeated measurements were made using a T(1) -independent, T 2*-corrected chemical shift-based fat-water separation method with multi-peak spectral modeling of fat, and T(2) -corrected single voxel MR spectroscopy. Precision was assessed through calculation of Bland-Altman plots and concordance correlation intervals. Accuracy was assessed through linear regression between MRI and MRS. Sensitivity and specificity of MRI fat-fractions for diagnosis of steatosis using MRS as a reference standard were also calculated. RESULTS: Statistical analysis demonstrated excellent precision of MRI and MRS fat-fractions, indicated by 95% confidence intervals (units of absolute percent) of [-2.66%,2.64%] for single MRI ROI measurements, [-0.81%,0.80%] for averaged MRI ROI, and [-2.70%,2.87%] for single-voxel MRS. Linear regression between MRI and MRS indicated that the MRI method is highly accurate. Sensitivity and specificity for detection of steatosis using averaged MRI ROI were 100% and 94%, respectively. The relationship between hepatic fat-fraction and body mass index was examined. CONCLUSION: Fat-fraction measured with T(1) -independent T 2*-corrected MRI and multi-peak spectral modeling of fat is a highly precise and accurate method of quantifying hepatic steatosis.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".