Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Unlabelled: The institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant study. After all five patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease signed a consent, they underwent magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for hepatic fat quantification. The purpose of this study was to develop a fast and accurate method to acquire and display quantitative maps of the percentage of hepatic fat. In-phase and out-of-phase gradient-echo MR imaging was performed with dual flip angles (70 degrees, 20 degrees) to resolve ambiguity of the dominant constituent. T2* corrections were also estimated and applied to generate color-coded maps of the estimated percentage of hepatic fat. MR imaging results were compared with biopsy results in two of five patients, and the technique was validated qualitatively and quantitatively with a water-oil phantom. Results of the phantom study confirmed that the dual-flip angle algorithm can be used to correctly identify the dominant constituent, allowing depiction of 0%-100% of fat content. The estimated liver fat fraction was comparable to quantitative fat measurements at biopsy in both patients (MR imaging, 18.3% +/- 2.8 [standard deviation] and 28.6% +/- 2.4, vs quantitative histopathologic analysis, 11.2% and 28.5%, respectively).
Supplemental Material: radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/2373041639/DC1
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2373041639 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!