A Pictorial Review of Hepatobiliary Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Hepatocyte-Specific Contrast Agents: Uses, Findings, and Pitfalls of Gadoxetate Disodium and Gadobenate Dimeglumine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has a well-established role as a highly specific and accurate modality for characterizing benign and malignant focal liver lesions. In particular, contrast-enhanced MRI using hepatocyte-specific contrast agents (HSCAs) improves lesion detection and characterization compared to other imaging modalities and MRI techniques. In this pictorial review, the mechanism of action of gadolinium-based MRI contrast agents, with a focus on HSCAs, is described. The clinical indications, protocols, and emerging uses of the 2 commercially available combined contrast agents available in the United States, gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate dimeglumine, are discussed. The MRI features of these agents are compared with examples of focal hepatic masses, many of which have been obtained within the same patient therefore allowing direct lesion comparison. Finally, the pitfalls in the use of combined contrast agents in liver MRI are highlighted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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".