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.
Di Cao, Yifan Yang, Mengyi Li, Yang Liu, Dawei Yang, Hui Xu, Han Lv, Zhongtao Zhang, Peng Zhang, Xibin Jia, Zhenghan Yang
{"title":"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.","authors":"Di Cao, Yifan Yang, Mengyi Li, Yang Liu, Dawei Yang, Hui Xu, Han Lv, Zhongtao Zhang, Peng Zhang, Xibin Jia, Zhenghan Yang","doi":"10.2174/0115734056282249231206060136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The performance of automatic liver segmentation and manual sampling MRI strategies needs be compared to determine interchangeability.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":54215,"journal":{"name":"Current Medical Imaging Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Medical Imaging Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/0115734056282249231206060136","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The performance of automatic liver segmentation and manual sampling MRI strategies needs be compared to determine interchangeability.
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: 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: 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: 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.
期刊介绍:
Current Medical Imaging Reviews publishes frontier review articles, original research articles, drug clinical trial studies and guest edited thematic issues on all the latest advances on medical imaging dedicated to clinical research. All relevant areas are covered by the journal, including advances in the diagnosis, instrumentation and therapeutic applications related to all modern medical imaging techniques.
The journal is essential reading for all clinicians and researchers involved in medical imaging and diagnosis.