Inter-visit and inter-reader reproducibility of multi-parametric diffusion-weighted MR imaging in longitudinally imaged patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease and healthy volunteers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread use of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD), MRI acquisition and quantification techniques vary in the literature suggesting the need for established and reproducible protocols. The goal of this study was to assess inter-visit and inter-reader reproducibility of DWI- and IVIM-derived parameters in patients with MAFLD and healthy volunteers using extensive sampling of the "fast" compartment, non-rigid registration, and exclusion voxels with poor fit quality. METHODS: ). DWI series were co-registered prior to voxel-wise non-linear regression of the IVIM model and voxels with poor fit quality were excluded (normalized root mean squared error ≥ 0.05). IVIM parameters (perfusion fraction, f; diffusion coefficient, D; and pseudo-diffusion coefficient, D*), and apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC) were computed from manual segmentation of the right liver lobe performed by two analysts on two MRI examinations. RESULTS: /s respectively. Except for parameter D* that was associated with between-subjects parameter variability (P = 0.009), there was no significant variability between subjects, examinations, or readers. CONCLUSION: With our approach, IVIM parameters f, D, D*, and ADC provided excellent inter-reader agreement and good to very good inter-visit or intra-reader agreement, thus showing the reproducibility of IVIM-DWI of the liver in MAFLD patients and volunteers.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".