Linearity, bias, and precision of hepatic proton density fat fraction measurements by using MR imaging

A meta-analysis

Takeshi Yokoo, Suraj D. Serai, Ali Pirasteh, Mustafa R. Bashir, Gavin Hamilton, Diego Hernando, Houchun H. Hu, Holger Hetterich, Jens Peter Kühn, Guido M. Kukuk, Rohit Loomba, Michael S. Middleton, Nancy A. Obuchowski, Ji Soo Song, An Tang, Xinhuai Wu, Scott B. Reeder, Claude B. Sirlin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

45 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the linearity, bias, and precision of hepatic proton density fat fraction (PDFF) measurements by using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging across different field strengths, imager manufacturers, and reconstruction methods. Materials and Methods: This meta-analysis was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A systematic literature search identified studies that evaluated the linearity and/or bias of hepatic PDFF measurements by using MR imaging (hereafter, MR imaging-PDFF) against PDFF measurements by using colocalized MR spectroscopy (hereafter, MR spectroscopy-PDFF) or the precision of MR imaging- PDFF. The quality of each study was evaluated by using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy 2 tool. De-identified original data sets from the selected studies were pooled. Linearity was evaluated by using linear regression between MR imaging-PDFF and MR spectroscopy- PDFF measurements. Bias, defined as the mean difference between MR imaging-PDFF and MR spectroscopy- PDFF measurements, was evaluated by using Bland- Altman analysis. Precision, defined as the agreement between repeated MR imaging-PDFF measurements, was evaluated by using a linear mixed-effects model, with field strength, imager manufacturer, reconstruction method, and region of interest as random effects. Results: Twenty-three studies (1679 participants) were selected for linearity and bias analyses and 11 studies (425 participants) were selected for precision analyses. MR imaging- PDFF was linear with MR spectroscopy-PDFF (R2 = 0.96). Regression slope (0.97; P , .001) and mean Bland-Altman bias (20.13%; 95% limits of agreement: 23.95%, 3.40%) indicated minimal underestimation by using MR imaging- PDFF. MR imaging-PDFF was precise at the region-ofinterest level, with repeatability and reproducibility coefficients of 2.99% and 4.12%, respectively. Field strength, imager manufacturer, and reconstruction method each had minimal effects on reproducibility. Conclusion: MR imaging-PDFF has excellent linearity, bias, and precision across different field strengths, imager manufacturers, and reconstruction methods.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)486-498
Number of pages13
JournalRadiology
Volume286
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2018

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Protons
Fats
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Liver
Linear Models
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Guidelines

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Yokoo, T., Serai, S. D., Pirasteh, A., Bashir, M. R., Hamilton, G., Hernando, D., ... Sirlin, C. B. (2018). Linearity, bias, and precision of hepatic proton density fat fraction measurements by using MR imaging: A meta-analysis. Radiology, 286(2), 486-498. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170550

Linearity, bias, and precision of hepatic proton density fat fraction measurements by using MR imaging : A meta-analysis. / Yokoo, Takeshi; Serai, Suraj D.; Pirasteh, Ali; Bashir, Mustafa R.; Hamilton, Gavin; Hernando, Diego; Hu, Houchun H.; Hetterich, Holger; Kühn, Jens Peter; Kukuk, Guido M.; Loomba, Rohit; Middleton, Michael S.; Obuchowski, Nancy A.; Song, Ji Soo; Tang, An; Wu, Xinhuai; Reeder, Scott B.; Sirlin, Claude B.

In: Radiology, Vol. 286, No. 2, 01.02.2018, p. 486-498.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yokoo, T, Serai, SD, Pirasteh, A, Bashir, MR, Hamilton, G, Hernando, D, Hu, HH, Hetterich, H, Kühn, JP, Kukuk, GM, Loomba, R, Middleton, MS, Obuchowski, NA, Song, JS, Tang, A, Wu, X, Reeder, SB & Sirlin, CB 2018, 'Linearity, bias, and precision of hepatic proton density fat fraction measurements by using MR imaging: A meta-analysis', Radiology, vol. 286, no. 2, pp. 486-498. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170550
Yokoo, Takeshi ; Serai, Suraj D. ; Pirasteh, Ali ; Bashir, Mustafa R. ; Hamilton, Gavin ; Hernando, Diego ; Hu, Houchun H. ; Hetterich, Holger ; Kühn, Jens Peter ; Kukuk, Guido M. ; Loomba, Rohit ; Middleton, Michael S. ; Obuchowski, Nancy A. ; Song, Ji Soo ; Tang, An ; Wu, Xinhuai ; Reeder, Scott B. ; Sirlin, Claude B. / Linearity, bias, and precision of hepatic proton density fat fraction measurements by using MR imaging : A meta-analysis. In: Radiology. 2018 ; Vol. 286, No. 2. pp. 486-498.
@article{0057cdb6d9324f0cb28a48e3e7d28cab,
title = "Linearity, bias, and precision of hepatic proton density fat fraction measurements by using MR imaging: A meta-analysis",
abstract = "Purpose: To determine the linearity, bias, and precision of hepatic proton density fat fraction (PDFF) measurements by using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging across different field strengths, imager manufacturers, and reconstruction methods. Materials and Methods: This meta-analysis was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A systematic literature search identified studies that evaluated the linearity and/or bias of hepatic PDFF measurements by using MR imaging (hereafter, MR imaging-PDFF) against PDFF measurements by using colocalized MR spectroscopy (hereafter, MR spectroscopy-PDFF) or the precision of MR imaging- PDFF. The quality of each study was evaluated by using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy 2 tool. De-identified original data sets from the selected studies were pooled. Linearity was evaluated by using linear regression between MR imaging-PDFF and MR spectroscopy- PDFF measurements. Bias, defined as the mean difference between MR imaging-PDFF and MR spectroscopy- PDFF measurements, was evaluated by using Bland- Altman analysis. Precision, defined as the agreement between repeated MR imaging-PDFF measurements, was evaluated by using a linear mixed-effects model, with field strength, imager manufacturer, reconstruction method, and region of interest as random effects. Results: Twenty-three studies (1679 participants) were selected for linearity and bias analyses and 11 studies (425 participants) were selected for precision analyses. MR imaging- PDFF was linear with MR spectroscopy-PDFF (R2 = 0.96). Regression slope (0.97; P , .001) and mean Bland-Altman bias (20.13{\%}; 95{\%} limits of agreement: 23.95{\%}, 3.40{\%}) indicated minimal underestimation by using MR imaging- PDFF. MR imaging-PDFF was precise at the region-ofinterest level, with repeatability and reproducibility coefficients of 2.99{\%} and 4.12{\%}, respectively. Field strength, imager manufacturer, and reconstruction method each had minimal effects on reproducibility. Conclusion: MR imaging-PDFF has excellent linearity, bias, and precision across different field strengths, imager manufacturers, and reconstruction methods.",
author = "Takeshi Yokoo and Serai, {Suraj D.} and Ali Pirasteh and Bashir, {Mustafa R.} and Gavin Hamilton and Diego Hernando and Hu, {Houchun H.} and Holger Hetterich and K{\"u}hn, {Jens Peter} and Kukuk, {Guido M.} and Rohit Loomba and Middleton, {Michael S.} and Obuchowski, {Nancy A.} and Song, {Ji Soo} and An Tang and Xinhuai Wu and Reeder, {Scott B.} and Sirlin, {Claude B.}",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1148/radiol.2017170550",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "286",
pages = "486--498",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Linearity, bias, and precision of hepatic proton density fat fraction measurements by using MR imaging

T2 - A meta-analysis

AU - Yokoo, Takeshi

AU - Serai, Suraj D.

AU - Pirasteh, Ali

AU - Bashir, Mustafa R.

AU - Hamilton, Gavin

AU - Hernando, Diego

AU - Hu, Houchun H.

AU - Hetterich, Holger

AU - Kühn, Jens Peter

AU - Kukuk, Guido M.

AU - Loomba, Rohit

AU - Middleton, Michael S.

AU - Obuchowski, Nancy A.

AU - Song, Ji Soo

AU - Tang, An

AU - Wu, Xinhuai

AU - Reeder, Scott B.

AU - Sirlin, Claude B.

PY - 2018/2/1

Y1 - 2018/2/1

N2 - Purpose: To determine the linearity, bias, and precision of hepatic proton density fat fraction (PDFF) measurements by using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging across different field strengths, imager manufacturers, and reconstruction methods. Materials and Methods: This meta-analysis was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A systematic literature search identified studies that evaluated the linearity and/or bias of hepatic PDFF measurements by using MR imaging (hereafter, MR imaging-PDFF) against PDFF measurements by using colocalized MR spectroscopy (hereafter, MR spectroscopy-PDFF) or the precision of MR imaging- PDFF. The quality of each study was evaluated by using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy 2 tool. De-identified original data sets from the selected studies were pooled. Linearity was evaluated by using linear regression between MR imaging-PDFF and MR spectroscopy- PDFF measurements. Bias, defined as the mean difference between MR imaging-PDFF and MR spectroscopy- PDFF measurements, was evaluated by using Bland- Altman analysis. Precision, defined as the agreement between repeated MR imaging-PDFF measurements, was evaluated by using a linear mixed-effects model, with field strength, imager manufacturer, reconstruction method, and region of interest as random effects. Results: Twenty-three studies (1679 participants) were selected for linearity and bias analyses and 11 studies (425 participants) were selected for precision analyses. MR imaging- PDFF was linear with MR spectroscopy-PDFF (R2 = 0.96). Regression slope (0.97; P , .001) and mean Bland-Altman bias (20.13%; 95% limits of agreement: 23.95%, 3.40%) indicated minimal underestimation by using MR imaging- PDFF. MR imaging-PDFF was precise at the region-ofinterest level, with repeatability and reproducibility coefficients of 2.99% and 4.12%, respectively. Field strength, imager manufacturer, and reconstruction method each had minimal effects on reproducibility. Conclusion: MR imaging-PDFF has excellent linearity, bias, and precision across different field strengths, imager manufacturers, and reconstruction methods.

AB - Purpose: To determine the linearity, bias, and precision of hepatic proton density fat fraction (PDFF) measurements by using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging across different field strengths, imager manufacturers, and reconstruction methods. Materials and Methods: This meta-analysis was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A systematic literature search identified studies that evaluated the linearity and/or bias of hepatic PDFF measurements by using MR imaging (hereafter, MR imaging-PDFF) against PDFF measurements by using colocalized MR spectroscopy (hereafter, MR spectroscopy-PDFF) or the precision of MR imaging- PDFF. The quality of each study was evaluated by using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy 2 tool. De-identified original data sets from the selected studies were pooled. Linearity was evaluated by using linear regression between MR imaging-PDFF and MR spectroscopy- PDFF measurements. Bias, defined as the mean difference between MR imaging-PDFF and MR spectroscopy- PDFF measurements, was evaluated by using Bland- Altman analysis. Precision, defined as the agreement between repeated MR imaging-PDFF measurements, was evaluated by using a linear mixed-effects model, with field strength, imager manufacturer, reconstruction method, and region of interest as random effects. Results: Twenty-three studies (1679 participants) were selected for linearity and bias analyses and 11 studies (425 participants) were selected for precision analyses. MR imaging- PDFF was linear with MR spectroscopy-PDFF (R2 = 0.96). Regression slope (0.97; P , .001) and mean Bland-Altman bias (20.13%; 95% limits of agreement: 23.95%, 3.40%) indicated minimal underestimation by using MR imaging- PDFF. MR imaging-PDFF was precise at the region-ofinterest level, with repeatability and reproducibility coefficients of 2.99% and 4.12%, respectively. Field strength, imager manufacturer, and reconstruction method each had minimal effects on reproducibility. Conclusion: MR imaging-PDFF has excellent linearity, bias, and precision across different field strengths, imager manufacturers, and reconstruction methods.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041488881&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041488881&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1148/radiol.2017170550

DO - 10.1148/radiol.2017170550

M3 - Article

VL - 286

SP - 486

EP - 498

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 2

ER -