AI summary · arXiv: 2109.02400v1 · physics.med-ph

Multi-frequency MRE for elasticity quantitation and optimal tissue discrimination: a two-platform liver fibrosis mimicking phantom study

Fatiha Andoh (BIOMAPS), Jin Long Yue (BIOMAPS), Felicia Julea (BIOMAPS), Marion Tardieu (BIOMAPS), Camille Noûs (BIOMAPS), Gwenaël Pagé (BIOMAPS), Philippe Garteiser (BIOMAPS), Bernard van Beers (BIOMAPS),

and 3 more authorsXavier Maître (BIOMAPS), Claire Pellot-barakat, Van Beers

Original paper · DOI Submitted to arXiv on 06 Sep. 2021 NMR in Biomedicine, Wiley, 2021, 34 (8) License: NONEXCLUSIVE-DISTRIB 1.0

The essentials

  • Study evaluated repeatability, reproducibility, and robustness of Magnetic Resonance Elastography (MRE) in the context of algebraic inversion
  • Same excitation system implemented at two different sites with clinical MR scanners of 1.5 T and 3 T
  • Used four elastic, isotropic, homogeneous calibrated phantoms to represent different levels of liver fibrosis severity
  • Excellent repeatability and reproducibility between the two platforms
  • MRE velocities found to be robust against amplitude and pattern variations in displacement field
  • MRE outcomes highly sensitive to number of voxels per wavelength (s) in recorded displacement field
  • Relative biases reached up to 62% and precision decreased by a factor of up to 23.5 when s deviated from established conditions of validity (6 ≤ s ≤ 9)
  • Spatial sampling conditions crucial for accurate and precise MRE measurements for liver fibrosis assessment

Key points written by AI: they may contain errors, check them against the paper.

AI-generated keywords: MRE Repeatability Reproducibility Robustness Liver Fibrosis

Read further

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
  • Original abstract
This study evaluated the repeatability, reproducibility, and robustness of Magnetic Resonance Elastography (MRE) in the context of algebraic inversion. The researchers implemented the same excitation system at two different sites equipped with clinical MR scanners of 1.5 T and 3 T. They used a set of four elastic, isotropic, homogeneous calibrated phantoms to represent different levels of liver fibrosis severity. The results showed excellent repeatability and reproducibility between the two platforms, with mean coefficients of variations of 1.62% for shear velocity mean values and 1.95% for associated standard deviations. The MRE velocities were found to be robust against amplitude and pattern variations in the displacement field, with no significant differences observed between outcomes from both magnets at identical excitation frequencies, even when the displacement field amplitude was six times smaller. However, the study also revealed that MRE outcomes were highly sensitive to the number of voxels per wavelength (s) in the recorded displacement field. Relative biases reached up to 62%, and precision decreased by a factor of up to 23.5 when s deviated from established conditions of validity (6 ≤ s ≤ 9). This resulted in estimated shear velocity values that were not significantly different between phantoms representing increasing levels of liver fibrosis severity. Nevertheless, when spatial sampling conditions were fulfilled either prospectively during acquisition or retrospectively before reconstruction, MRE produced quantitative measurements that allowed for unambiguous discrimination between phantoms mimicking different levels of liver fibrosis severity. These measurements had infinitesimal p-values, indicating their high statistical significance. In summary, this study demonstrated that MRE is repeatable, reproducible, and robust when using the same excitation system on clinical MR scanners at different magnetic field strengths. However, it highlighted the importance of adhering to specific spatial sampling conditions to ensure accurate and precise MRE measurements for liver fibrosis assessment.

Was this synthesis useful?

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

Compare with the PDF

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Save to a collection Group papers in collections to compare them, chat with them and export them. Create a free account Log in

Advanced tools Premium

For researchers who follow a field closely: citation alerts, journal-club slides, version comparison and Zotero export. Discover Premium

Zotero
Citation alerts
Journal club Premium+ Slides to present it
Talk about it in public Premium+ Press kit: release, questions, hype check

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.