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
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.