↓ Skip to main content

Free-breathing quantification of hepatic fat in healthy children and children with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease using a multi-echo 3-D stack-of-radial MRI technique

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Radiology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Free-breathing quantification of hepatic fat in healthy children and children with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease using a multi-echo 3-D stack-of-radial MRI technique
Published in
Pediatric Radiology, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00247-018-4127-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tess Armstrong, Karrie V. Ly, Smruthi Murthy, Shahnaz Ghahremani, Grace Hyun J. Kim, Kara L. Calkins, Holden H. Wu

Abstract

In adults, noninvasive chemical shift encoded Cartesian magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and single-voxel magnetic resonance (MR) spectroscopy (SVS) accurately quantify hepatic steatosis but require breath-holding. In children, especially young and sick children, breath-holding is often limited or not feasible. Sedation can facilitate breath-holding but is highly undesirable. For these reasons, there is a need to develop free-breathing MRI technology that accurately quantifies steatosis in all children. This study aimed to compare non-sedated free-breathing multi-echo 3-D stack-of-radial (radial) MRI versus standard breath-holding MRI and SVS techniques in a group of children for fat quantification with respect to image quality, accuracy and repeatability. Healthy children (n=10, median age [±interquartile range]: 10.9 [±3.3] years) and overweight children with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) (n=9, median age: 15.2 [±3.2] years) were imaged at 3 Tesla using free-breathing radial MRI, breath-holding Cartesian MRI and breath-holding SVS. Acquisitions were performed twice to assess repeatability (within-subject mean difference, MDwithin). Images and hepatic proton-density fat fraction (PDFF) maps were scored for image quality. Free-breathing and breath-holding PDFF were compared using linear regression (correlation coefficient, r and concordance correlation coefficient, ρc) and Bland-Altman analysis (mean difference). P<0.05 was considered significant. In patients with NAFLD, free-breathing radial MRI demonstrated significantly less motion artifacts compared to breath-holding Cartesian (P<0.05). Free-breathing radial PDFF demonstrated a linear relationship (P<0.001) versus breath-holding SVS PDFF and breath-holding Cartesian PDFF with r=0.996 and ρc=0.994, and r=0.997 and ρc=0.995, respectively. The mean difference in PDFF between free-breathing radial MRI, breath-holding Cartesian MRI and breath-holding SVS was <0.7%. Repeated free-breathing radial MRI had MDwithin=0.25% for PDFF. In this pediatric study, non-sedated free-breathing radial MRI provided accurate and repeatable hepatic PDFF measurements and improved image quality, compared to standard breath-holding MR techniques.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 29%
Engineering 5 16%
Physics and Astronomy 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 7 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,976,833
of 23,085,832 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Radiology
#1,499
of 2,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,093
of 326,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Radiology
#27
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,085,832 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,096 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,741 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.