Quantitative Comparison of Liver Volume, Proton Density Fat Fraction, and Time Burden between Automatic Whole Liver Segmentation and Manual Sampling MRI Strategies for Diagnosing Metabolic Dysfunction-associated Steatotic Liver Disease in Obese Patients.

MRI-based proton density fat fraction hepatic steatosis liver segmentation liver volume sampling strategy time burden

Journal

Current medical imaging
ISSN: 1573-4056
Titre abrégé: Curr Med Imaging
Pays: United Arab Emirates
ID NLM: 101762461

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 Mar 2024
Historique:
received: 14 09 2023
revised: 06 11 2023
accepted: 13 11 2023
medline: 11 3 2024
pubmed: 11 3 2024
entrez: 11 3 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The performance of automatic liver segmentation and manual sampling MRI strategies needs be compared to determine interchangeability. To compare automatic liver segmentation and manual sampling strategies (manual whole liver segmentation and standardized manual region of interest) for performance in quantifying liver volume and MRI-proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF), identifying steatosis grade, and time burden. Fifty patients with obesity who underwent liver biopsy and MRI between December 2017 and November 2018 were included. Sampling strategies included automatic and manual whole liver segmentation and 4 and 9 large regions of interest. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman, linear regression, receiver operating characteristic curve, and Pearson correlation analyses were performed. Automatic whole liver segmentation liver volume and manual whole liver segmentation liver volume showed excellent agreement (ICC=0.97), high correlation (R2=0.96), and low bias (3.7%, 95% limits of agreement, -4.8%, 12.2%) in liver volume. There was the best agreement (ICC=0.99), highest correlation (R2=1.00), and minimum bias (0.84%, 95% limits of agreement, -0.20%, 1.89%) between automated whole liver segmentation MRI-PDFF and manual whole liver segmentation MRI-PDFF. There was no difference of each paired comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves for detecting steatosis (P=0.07-1.00). The minimum time burden for automatic whole liver segmentation was 0.32 s (0.32-0.33 s). Automatic measurement has similar effects to manual measurement in quantifying liver volume, MRI-PDFF, and detecting steatosis. Time burden of automatic whole liver segmentation is minimal among all sampling strategies. Manual measurement can be replaced by automatic measurement to improve quantitative efficiency.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The performance of automatic liver segmentation and manual sampling MRI strategies needs be compared to determine interchangeability.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
To compare automatic liver segmentation and manual sampling strategies (manual whole liver segmentation and standardized manual region of interest) for performance in quantifying liver volume and MRI-proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF), identifying steatosis grade, and time burden.
METHODS METHODS
Fifty patients with obesity who underwent liver biopsy and MRI between December 2017 and November 2018 were included. Sampling strategies included automatic and manual whole liver segmentation and 4 and 9 large regions of interest. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman, linear regression, receiver operating characteristic curve, and Pearson correlation analyses were performed.
RESULTS RESULTS
Automatic whole liver segmentation liver volume and manual whole liver segmentation liver volume showed excellent agreement (ICC=0.97), high correlation (R2=0.96), and low bias (3.7%, 95% limits of agreement, -4.8%, 12.2%) in liver volume. There was the best agreement (ICC=0.99), highest correlation (R2=1.00), and minimum bias (0.84%, 95% limits of agreement, -0.20%, 1.89%) between automated whole liver segmentation MRI-PDFF and manual whole liver segmentation MRI-PDFF. There was no difference of each paired comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves for detecting steatosis (P=0.07-1.00). The minimum time burden for automatic whole liver segmentation was 0.32 s (0.32-0.33 s).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Automatic measurement has similar effects to manual measurement in quantifying liver volume, MRI-PDFF, and detecting steatosis. Time burden of automatic whole liver segmentation is minimal among all sampling strategies. Manual measurement can be replaced by automatic measurement to improve quantitative efficiency.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38462830
pii: CMIR-EPUB-139010
doi: 10.2174/0115734056282249231206060136
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.

Auteurs

Di Cao (D)

Department of Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 95 Yong-an Road, Xi-Cheng District, Beijing 100050, China.

Yifan Yang (Y)

Beijing University of Technology, 100 Pingleyuan, Chao-Yang District, Beijing 100124, China.

Mengyi Li (M)

Department of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University & National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, No. 95 Yong-an Road, Xi-Cheng District, Beijing 100050, China.

Yang Liu (Y)

Department of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University & National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, No. 95 Yong-an Road, Xi-Cheng District, Beijing 100050, China.

Dawei Yang (D)

Department of Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 95 Yong-an Road, Xi-Cheng District, Beijing 100050, China.

Hui Xu (H)

Department of Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 95 Yong-an Road, Xi-Cheng District, Beijing 100050, China.

Han Lv (H)

Department of Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 95 Yong-an Road, Xi-Cheng District, Beijing 100050, China.

Zhongtao Zhang (Z)

Department of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University & National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, No. 95 Yong-an Road, Xi-Cheng District, Beijing 100050, China.

Peng Zhang (P)

Department of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University & National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, No. 95 Yong-an Road, Xi-Cheng District, Beijing 100050, China.

Xibin Jia (X)

Beijing University of Technology, 100 Pingleyuan, Chao-Yang District, Beijing 100124, China.

Zhenghan Yang (Z)

Department of Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 95 Yong-an Road, Xi-Cheng District, Beijing 100050, China.

Classifications MeSH