A PHP Error was encountered

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: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

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

Multisite, multivendor validation of the accuracy and reproducibility of proton-density fat-fraction quantification at 1.5T and 3T using a fat-water phantom. | LitMetric

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of quantitative chemical shift-encoded (CSE) MRI to quantify proton-density fat-fraction (PDFF) in a fat-water phantom across sites, vendors, field strengths, and protocols.

Methods: Six sites (Philips, Siemens, and GE Healthcare) participated in this study. A phantom containing multiple vials with various oil/water suspensions (PDFF:0%-100%) was built, shipped to each site, and scanned at 1.5T and 3T using two CSE protocols per field strength. Confounder-corrected PDFF maps were reconstructed using a common algorithm. To assess accuracy, PDFF bias and linear regression with the known PDFF were calculated. To assess reproducibility, measurements were compared across sites, vendors, field strengths, and protocols using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), Bland-Altman analysis, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results: PDFF measurements revealed an overall absolute bias (across sites, field strengths, and protocols) of 0.22% (95% confidence interval, 0.07%-0.38%) and R  > 0.995 relative to the known PDFF at each site, field strength, and protocol, with a slope between 0.96 and 1.02 and an intercept between -0.56% and 1.13%. ANCOVA did not reveal effects of field strength (P = 0.36) or protocol (P = 0.19). There was a significant effect of vendor (F = 25.13, P = 1.07 × 10 ) with a bias of -0.37% (Philips) and -1.22% (Siemens) relative to GE Healthcare. The overall ICC was 0.999.

Conclusion: CSE-based fat quantification is accurate and reproducible across sites, vendors, field strengths, and protocols. Magn Reson Med 77:1516-1524, 2017. © 2016 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4835219PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.26228DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

field strengths
16
sites vendors
12
vendors field
12
field strength
12
strengths protocols
12
accuracy reproducibility
8
proton-density fat-fraction
8
fat-water phantom
8
field
7
pdff
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!