Reliability of magnetic resonance elastography using multislice two‐dimensional spin‐echo echo‐planar imaging (SE‐EPI) and three‐dimensional inversion reconstruction for assessing renal stiffness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the reliability of MRE using a spin-echo echo-planar imaging (SE-EPI) renal MRE technique in healthy volunteers. METHODS: Institutional review board approved prospective study in which all participants provided written informed consent. Sixteen healthy volunteers comprising seven males and nine females with a median age of 35 years (age range: 23 to 59 years) were included. Coronal 90 Hz and 60 Hz MRE acquisitions were performed twice within a 30-min interval between examinations. Renal MRE reliability was assessed by (i) test-retest repeatability, and (ii) inter-rater agreement between two independent readers. The MRE-measured averaged renal stiffness values were evaluated using: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman and the within-subject coefficient of variation (COV). RESULTS: For test-retest repeatability, Bland-Altman showed a mean stiffness difference between examinations of 0.07 kPa (95% limits of agreement: -1.41, 1.54) at 90 Hz and 0.01 kPa (95% limits of agreement: -0.51, 0.53) at 60 Hz. Coefficient of repeatability was 1.47 kPa and 0.52 kPa at 90 Hz and 60 Hz, respectively. The within-subject COV was 13.6% and 7.7% at 90 Hz and 60 Hz, respectively. ICC values were 0.922 and 0.907 for test-retest repeatability and 0.998 and 0.989 for inter-rater agreement, respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: SE-EPI renal MRE is a reliable technique.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".