4.7 Article

Prediction of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) activity score (NAS) with multiparametric hepatic magnetic resonance imaging and elastography

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 29, 期 11, 页码 5823-5831

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06076-0

关键词

Magnetic resonance imaging; Elastography; Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [EB017197, EB001981, DK111378]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To investigate the use of MR elastography (MRE)-derived mechanical properties (shear stiffness (|G*|) and loss modulus (G '')) and MRI-derived fat fraction (FF) to predict the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) activity score (NAS) in a NAFLD mouse model. Methods Eighty-nine male mice were studied, including 64 training and 25 independent testing animals. An MRI/MRE exam and histologic evaluation were performed. Pairwise, nonparametric comparisons and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the relationships between the three imaging parameters (FF, |G*|, and G '') and histologic features. A virtual NAS score (vNAS) was generated by combining three imaging parameters with an ordinal logistic model (OLM) and a generalized linear model (GLM). The prediction accuracy was evaluated by ROC analyses. Results The combination of FF, |G*|, and G '' predicted NAS > 1 with excellent accuracy in both training and testing sets (AUROC > 0.84). OLM and GLM predictive models misclassified 3/54 and 6/54 mice in the training, and 1/25 and 1/25 in the testing cohort respectively, in distinguishing between not-NASH and definite-NASH. Borderline-NASH prediction was poorer in the training set, and no borderline-NASH mice were available in the testing set. Conclusion This preliminary study shows that multiparametric MRI/MRE can be used to accurately predict the NAS score in a NAFLD animal model, representing a promising alternative to liver biopsy for assessing NASH severity and treatment response.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据