Image de couverture de livre

Comparison of vendor-independent software tools for liver proton density fat fraction estimation at 1.5 T

(1) Background: Open-source software tools are available to estimate proton density fat fraction (PDFF). (2) Methods: We compared four algorithms: complex-based with graph cut (GC), magnitude-based (MAG), magnitude-only estimation with Rician noise modeling (MAG-R), and multi-scale quadratic pseudo-...

Description complète

Enregistré dans:
Détails bibliographiques
Auteurs principaux: Zsombor, Zita (Auteur) , Zsély, Boglárka (Auteur) , Rónaszéki, Aladár D. (Auteur) , Stollmayer, Róbert (Auteur) , Budai, Bettina K. (Auteur) , Palotás, Lőrinc (Auteur) , Bérczi, Viktor (Auteur) , Kalina, Ildikó (Auteur) , Maurovich Horvat, Pál (Auteur) , Kaposi, Pál Novák (Auteur)
Format: Article (Journal)
Langue:anglais
Publié: 30 May 2024
In: Diagnostics
Year: 2024, Volume: 14, Numéro: 11, Pages: 1-15
ISSN:2075-4418
DOI:10.3390/diagnostics14111138
Accès en ligne:Verlag, kostenfrei, Volltext: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14111138
Verlag, kostenfrei, Volltext: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/14/11/1138
Accéder au texte intégral
Notes sur l'auteur:Zita Zsombor, Boglárka Zsély, Aladár D. Rónaszéki, Róbert Stollmayer, Bettina K. Budai, Lőrinc Palotás, Viktor Bérczi, Ildikó Kalina, Pál Maurovich Horvat and Pál Novák Kaposi
Description
Résumé:(1) Background: Open-source software tools are available to estimate proton density fat fraction (PDFF). (2) Methods: We compared four algorithms: complex-based with graph cut (GC), magnitude-based (MAG), magnitude-only estimation with Rician noise modeling (MAG-R), and multi-scale quadratic pseudo-Boolean optimization with graph cut (QPBO). The accuracy and reliability of the methods were evaluated in phantoms with known fat/water ratios and a patient cohort with various grades (S0-S3) of steatosis. Image acquisitions were performed at 1.5 Tesla (T). (3) Results: The PDFF estimates showed a nearly perfect correlation (Pearson r = 0.999, p < 0.001) and inter-rater agreement (ICC = from 0.995 to 0.999, p < 0.001) with true fat fractions. The absolute bias was low with all methods (0.001-1%), and an ANCOVA detected no significant difference between the algorithms in vitro. The agreement across the methods was very good in the patient cohort (ICC = 0.891, p < 0.001). However, MAG estimates (−2.30% ± 6.11%, p = 0.005) were lower than MAG-R. The field inhomogeneity artifacts were most frequent in MAG-R (70%) and GC (39%) and absent in QPBO images. (4) Conclusions: The tested algorithms all accurately estimate PDFF in vitro. Meanwhile, QPBO is the least affected by field inhomogeneity artifacts in vivo.
Description:Gesehen am 18.11.2024
Description matérielle:Online Resource
ISSN:2075-4418
DOI:10.3390/diagnostics14111138

Documents similaires