Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of Vendor-Independent Software Tools for Liver Proton Density Fat Fraction Estimation at 1.5 T.
Zsombor, Zita; Zsély, Boglárka; Rónaszéki, Aladár D; Stollmayer, Róbert; Budai, Bettina K; Palotás, Lorinc; Bérczi, Viktor; Kalina, Ildikó; Maurovich Horvat, Pál; Kaposi, Pál Novák.
Afiliação
  • Zsombor Z; Department of Radiology, Medical Imaging Centre, Semmelweis University, 1083 Budapest, Hungary.
  • Zsély B; Department of Radiology, Medical Imaging Centre, Semmelweis University, 1083 Budapest, Hungary.
  • Rónaszéki AD; Department of Radiology, Medical Imaging Centre, Semmelweis University, 1083 Budapest, Hungary.
  • Stollmayer R; Department of Radiology, Medical Imaging Centre, Semmelweis University, 1083 Budapest, Hungary.
  • Budai BK; Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (DIR), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
  • Palotás L; Department of Radiology, Medical Imaging Centre, Semmelweis University, 1083 Budapest, Hungary.
  • Bérczi V; Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (DIR), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
  • Kalina I; Department of Radiology, Medical Imaging Centre, Semmelweis University, 1083 Budapest, Hungary.
  • Maurovich Horvat P; Department of Radiology, Medical Imaging Centre, Semmelweis University, 1083 Budapest, Hungary.
  • Kaposi PN; Department of Radiology, Medical Imaging Centre, Semmelweis University, 1083 Budapest, Hungary.
Diagnostics (Basel) ; 14(11)2024 May 30.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38893664
ABSTRACT
(1)

Background:

Open-source software tools are available to estimate proton density fat fraction (PDFF). (2)

Methods:

We compared four algorithms complex-based with graph cut (GC), magnitude-based (MAG), magnitude-only estimation with Rician noise modeling (MAG-R), and multi-scale quadratic pseudo-Boolean optimization with graph cut (QPBO). The accuracy and reliability of the methods were evaluated in phantoms with known fat/water ratios and a patient cohort with various grades (S0-S3) of steatosis. Image acquisitions were performed at 1.5 Tesla (T). (3)

Results:

The PDFF estimates showed a nearly perfect correlation (Pearson r = 0.999, p < 0.001) and inter-rater agreement (ICC = from 0.995 to 0.999, p < 0.001) with true fat fractions. The absolute bias was low with all methods (0.001-1%), and an ANCOVA detected no significant difference between the algorithms in vitro. The agreement across the methods was very good in the patient cohort (ICC = 0.891, p < 0.001). However, MAG estimates (-2.30% ± 6.11%, p = 0.005) were lower than MAG-R. The field inhomogeneity artifacts were most frequent in MAG-R (70%) and GC (39%) and absent in QPBO images. (4)

Conclusions:

The tested algorithms all accurately estimate PDFF in vitro. Meanwhile, QPBO is the least affected by field inhomogeneity artifacts in vivo.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article