MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2921807642 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.195

A196 A COMPARISON OF LIVER FIBROSIS AND SIMPLE STEATOSIS ASSESSMENT USING GADOXETIC-ACID ENHANCED MRI WITH MR ELASTOGRAPHY AND MRI FAT FRACTION

2019· article· en· W2921807642 on OpenAlexaff
R S, Rommel G. Tirona, Zahra Kassam, M Beaton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteatohepatitisMedicineMagnetic resonance elastographyGadoxetic acidSteatosisCirrhosisTransient elastographyLiver biopsyFatty liverElastographyPopulationInternal medicineFibrosisGastroenterologyRadiologyMagnetic resonance imagingBiopsyDiseaseUltrasound

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has become a pandemic, affecting up to 25% of the global population, with high incidence and prevalence in North America.1 The spectrum of disease ranges from simple steatosis to steatohepatitis, with or without fibrosis (NASH). It is important to be able to diagnose patients with simple steatosis, but even more so to identify those with NASH given their increased risk of progression to cirrhosis. The gold standard for NASH diagnosis remains liver biopsy. However, given its invasive nature and recognized sampling error from heterogeneity of disease distribution, there has been an increase in the use of non-invasive techniques.2 MRI-fat fraction (MR-FF) is validated for the assessment of hepatic steatosis3 and MR elastography (MRE) for fibrosis.4 MRE requires special hardware and software not readily available. As such, a more readily available imaging modality known as gadoxetic-acid enhanced MRI (GE-MRI), has shown to potentially differentiate simple steatosis from NASH.5 To determine if GE-MRI can differentiate NAFLD from healthy controls compared to MR-FF, and/or simple steatosis from NASH compared to MRE. Healthy controls and NAFLD patients provided informed written consent to participate in this cross-sectional cohort study. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Board at Western University. The diagnosis of NAFLD was based on the AASLD definition.6 These NAFLD patients were divided into those with simple steatosis or NASH based on liver biopsy or transient elastography. All patients underwent MRI-FF, MRE, and GE-MRI. A total of 17 patients were studied. Five healthy control and 12 NAFLD patients, of whom 3 had biopsy proven NASH and 4 had fibrosis based on transient elastography, the remaining 5 had simple steatosis. GE-MRI was able to differentiate healthy patients from NAFLD patients [mean enhancement difference -35.07 ± 11.66 (p=0.0088)]. MR-FF had a statistically significant difference [0.2823 ± 0.03726 (p<0.0001)] and differentiated all patients with NAFLD. GE-MRI was not able to differentiate between hepatic steatosis and NASH, but there was a mean difference in enhancement of 18.67. MRE was able to differentiate between all patients with simple steatosis and NASH with statistical significance [mean difference -1.799 (95% CI = -3.584 to -0.01313, p=0.0482)]. This study shows the difference in enhancement on GE-MRI is much lower in patients with fatty liver and particularly those with liver fibrosis, potentially due to altered hepatocyte uptake of gadoxetic acid. Given the small patient size, specific cut-off values cannot reliably be established. The study also confirms that MR-FF is a reliable modality for the diagnosis of NAFLD, but not liver fibrosis, and that MRE is reliable for the diagnosis of NASH. None

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→