MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414084956 · doi:10.1186/s41747-025-00615-9

Quantitative MRI Dixon signal drop and fat fraction for differentiating bone marrow lesions: a two-center prospective analysis

2025· article· en· W4414084956 on OpenAlexaff
Maha Ibrahim Metwally, Yassir Edrees Almalki, Ahmed Mohamed Alsowey, hazem tantawy, Mohamed G. Hamed, Shimaa Abdelmoneem, Sharifa Khalid Alduraibi, Ziyad Almushayti, Shaker Alshehri, Ahmed M. Abdelkhalik Basha, Mohammad Abd Alkhalik Basha

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Radiology Experimental · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone and Joint Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
FundersZagazig University
KeywordsReproducibilityBone marrowMagnetic resonance imagingNeuroradiologyMalignancyProspective cohort studyReliability (semiconductor)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bone marrow (BM) lesion differentiation remains challenging, and quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may enhance accuracy over conventional methods. We evaluated the diagnostic value and inter-reader reliability of Dixon-based signal drop (%drop) and fat fraction percentage (%fat) as adjuncts to existing protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective two-center study, 172 patients with BM signal abnormalities underwent standardized 1.5-T MRI protocols, including Dixon sequences. Two musculoskeletal radiologists independently evaluated images and performed quantitative measurements of %drop and %fat. Final diagnoses were established through histopathology (n = 96) or imaging follow-up (n = 76). Diagnostic value was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), inter-reader reliability using Cohen's κ coefficient. RESULTS: The consensus optimal cutoff was for %drop ≤ 19.8%, yielding 87.2% accuracy, 95.3% sensitivity, and 73.8% specificity, and that for %fat was ≤ 18.3%, achieving 86.6% accuracy, 96.3% sensitivity, and 70.8% specificity. Both metrics showed high diagnostic performance (AUROC 0.824-0.863) and excellent inter-reader reliability (κ > 0.93, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified %drop ≤ 19.8% and %fat ≤ 18.3% as the strongest independent predictors of malignancy, with odds ratio (OR) being 9.38 and 8.85, respectively (p < 0.001). Signal characteristics on Dixon sequences provided additional diagnostic value, with signal voids on fat-only images (OR 7.14) and high signals on water-only images (OR 5.46). CONCLUSION: Quantitative MRI Dixon imaging parameters demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy and excellent inter-reader reliability in differentiating benign and malignant BM lesions, supporting their implementation in clinical practice protocols as a reproducible adjunct to conventional MRI. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Quantitative Dixon MRI provides reproducible, noninvasive differentiation of bone marrow lesions with high diagnostic accuracy across anatomical sites, enhancing clinical decision-making with standardized thresholds while demonstrating excellent inter-center consistency. KEY POINTS: Quantitative Dixon MRI thresholds of %drop ≤ 19.8% and %fat ≤ 18.3% were established as reliable predictors of malignancy in bone marrow lesions. Dixon metrics demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy (86.6-87.2%), compared to conventional T1-weighted sequences (79.2%). Excellent inter-reader reliability (κ = 0.895-0.943) supports the reproducibility of quantitative Dixon MRI in clinical practice.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Radiology ExperimentalSame topicBone and Joint DiseasesFrench-language works237,207