Quantification of hepatic fat: evaluation of different magnetic resonance imaging measurement strategies in cases of homogeneous and heterogeneous distribution.

Q3 Medicine
Radiologia Brasileira Pub Date : 2024-11-18 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1590/0100-3984.2024.0009-en
Eloa de Castro Noguerol, Luis Ronan Marquez Ferreira de Souza, Valdair Francisco Muglia, Jorge Elias
{"title":"Quantification of hepatic fat: evaluation of different magnetic resonance imaging measurement strategies in cases of homogeneous and heterogeneous distribution.","authors":"Eloa de Castro Noguerol, Luis Ronan Marquez Ferreira de Souza, Valdair Francisco Muglia, Jorge Elias","doi":"10.1590/0100-3984.2024.0009-en","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate three different measurements strategies to quantify hepatic steatosis and to investigate the differences between homogeneous and heterogeneous forms of hepatic steatosis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Retrospective study conducted by magnetic resonance imaging review. We evaluated three different strategies measures for quantification of hepatic steatosis in two matched groups: homogeneous and heterogeneous steatosis. We considered <i>p</i> < 0.05 significance level in all made tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In heterogeneous steatosis group, the strategy with a region of interest (ROI) of 1 cm<sup>2</sup> to measure the signal intensity in the most altered area showed significant variations in the quantification, while the average of four ROIs of 1 cm<sup>2</sup> or representative target area in axial section did not vary significant. In diffuse hepatic steatosis, any strategy used showed no significant difference. The intraclass correlation coefficient ranged between 0.96 and 0.99, with 95% confidence interval of 0.93-0.99.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The quantification of fat liver by magnetic resonance imaging using only one ROI is less representative, especially in heterogeneous steatosis. There was no significant difference between the average of four ROIs strategy and the strategy of representative segmentation area of parenchyma.</p>","PeriodicalId":20842,"journal":{"name":"Radiologia Brasileira","volume":"57 ","pages":"e20240009en"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11575847/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiologia Brasileira","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-3984.2024.0009-en","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate three different measurements strategies to quantify hepatic steatosis and to investigate the differences between homogeneous and heterogeneous forms of hepatic steatosis.

Materials and methods: Retrospective study conducted by magnetic resonance imaging review. We evaluated three different strategies measures for quantification of hepatic steatosis in two matched groups: homogeneous and heterogeneous steatosis. We considered p < 0.05 significance level in all made tests.

Results: In heterogeneous steatosis group, the strategy with a region of interest (ROI) of 1 cm2 to measure the signal intensity in the most altered area showed significant variations in the quantification, while the average of four ROIs of 1 cm2 or representative target area in axial section did not vary significant. In diffuse hepatic steatosis, any strategy used showed no significant difference. The intraclass correlation coefficient ranged between 0.96 and 0.99, with 95% confidence interval of 0.93-0.99.

Conclusion: The quantification of fat liver by magnetic resonance imaging using only one ROI is less representative, especially in heterogeneous steatosis. There was no significant difference between the average of four ROIs strategy and the strategy of representative segmentation area of parenchyma.

肝脏脂肪定量:评估同质和异质分布情况下的不同磁共振成像测量策略。
目的评估量化肝脂肪变性的三种不同测量策略,并研究同质性和异质性肝脂肪变性之间的差异:通过磁共振成像检查进行回顾性研究。我们在两个匹配组:同质性和异质性脂肪变性中评估了量化肝脂肪变性的三种不同策略。在所有测试中,我们都将 P < 0.05 视为显著性水平:结果:在异质性脂肪变性组中,用 1 平方厘米的感兴趣区(ROI)来测量改变最严重区域的信号强度的策略在量化上有显著差异,而轴切片中四个 1 平方厘米感兴趣区或代表性目标区域的平均值没有显著差异。在弥漫性肝脂肪变性中,所使用的任何策略都没有明显差异。类内相关系数介于 0.96 和 0.99 之间,95% 置信区间为 0.93-0.99:仅使用一个 ROI 进行磁共振成像脂肪肝量化的代表性较差,尤其是在异质性脂肪肝中。四个 ROI 的平均值策略与实质组织代表性分割区域策略之间没有明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Radiologia Brasileira
Radiologia Brasileira Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
75
审稿时长
28 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信