Multi-frequency MRE for elasticity quantitation and optimal tissue discrimination: a two-platform liver fibrosis mimicking phantom study
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- 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
Authors: 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), Xavier Maître (BIOMAPS), Claire Pellot-barakat, Van Beers
Abstract: In the framework of algebraic inversion, Magnetic Resonance Elastography (MRE) repeatability, reproducibility and robustness were evaluated on extracted shear velocities (or elastic moduli). The same excitation system was implemented at two sites equipped with clinical MR scanners of 1.5 T and 3 T. A set of four elastic, isotropic, homogeneous calibrated phantoms of distinct elasticity representing the spectrum of liver fibrosis severity was mechanically characterized. The repeatability of the measurements and the reproducibility between the two platforms were found to be excellent with mean coefficients of variations of 1.62% for the shear velocity mean values and 1.95% for the associated standard deviations. MRE velocities were robust to the amplitude and pattern variations of the displacement field with virtually no difference between outcomes from both magnets at identical excitation frequencies even when the displacement field amplitude was 6 times smaller. However, MRE outcomes were very sensitive to the number of voxels per wavelength, s, of the recorded displacement field, with relative biases reaching 62% and precision losing up to a factor 23.5. For both magnetic field strengths, MRE accuracy and precision were largely degraded outside of established conditions of validity ($6 \lesssim s \lesssim 9$) resulting in estimated shear velocity values not significantly different between phantoms of increasing elasticity. When fulfilling the spatial sampling conditions, either prospectively in the acquisition or retrospectively before the reconstruction, MRE produced quantitative measurements that allowed to unambiguously discriminate, with infinitesimal p-values, between the phantoms mimicking increasing severity of liver fibrosis.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
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.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
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.
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.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
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.