Correction: Evaluation of liver fibrosis using diffusion-weighted virtual magnetic resonance elastography and ultrasound elastography

clinical or laboratory evidence of acute hepatitis or cholestasis, and Terrault (Hepatology (Baltimore, Md) 63:261, 2016) inadequate image quality (motion artifacts, low signal-to-noise ratio).All patients underwent 3 T VMRE (b = 200/1500 s/ mm 2 ) and two-dimensional shear wave elastography (2D-SWE).VMRE was analyzed by two blinded readers; USE by a single radiologist.Using METAVIR staging (F0-F4) as reference, fibrosis was categorized as F0-1 vs. F2-4 and F0-2 vs. F3-4.Statistical analyses included ICC, Bland-Altman, Kruskal-Wallis with Bonferroni-corrected Dunn tests, and ROC analysis.An HBV subgroup (n = 33) and a non-HBV group (n = 16; including metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), autoimmune, and toxic hepatitis) were analyzed separately to assess VMRE performance across different etiologies.Results Initially, 59 patients were enrolled.After excluding 10 patients due to MRI contraindications, hepatic iron overload, or inadequate image quality, 49 patients were included in the final analysis (mean age 48.2 14.9 years; 28 males, 21 females; 67% HBV-positive).VMRE demonstrated significant limitations in clinical utility, failing to discriminate fibrosis stages in the overall cohort (AUC 0.45-0.51,p > 0.05).While HBV-infected patients showed some promise with an overall significant variation across stages (p = 0.004), post-hoc analysis revealed VMRE could only distinguish between the extreme ends of the fibrosis spectrum (F0 vs. F4: adjusted p = 0.0058).This restricted diagnostic capability was reflected in the HBV subgroup's modest AUC values of 0.75-0.76,which remained below clinical acceptability thresholds.In striking contrast, ultrasound elastography exhibited robust performance across all analyses.It achieved excellent diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.86-0.95) with highly significant p-values (< 0.001) for all fibrosis classifications, along with clinically practical Correction to: Abdominal Radiology

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Abdominal Radiology
Published
2026-03-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-026-05427-y
Primary Topic
Liver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Correction: Evaluation of liver fibrosis using diffusion-weighted virtual magnetic resonance elastography and ultrasound elastography

Abdominal Radiology
Liver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
article

Correction: Evaluation of liver fibrosis using diffusion-weighted virtual magnetic resonance elastography and ultrasound elastography

article en

Abstract

clinical or laboratory evidence of acute hepatitis or cholestasis, and Terrault (Hepatology (Baltimore, Md) 63:261, 2016) inadequate image quality (motion artifacts, low signal-to-noise ratio).All patients underwent 3 T VMRE (b = 200/1500 s/ mm 2 ) and two-dimensional shear wave elastography (2D-SWE).VMRE was analyzed by two blinded readers; USE by a single radiologist.Using METAVIR staging (F0-F4) as reference, fibrosis was categorized as F0-1 vs. F2-4 and F0-2 vs. F3-4.Statistical analyses included ICC, Bland-Altman, Kruskal-Wallis with Bonferroni-corrected Dunn tests, and ROC analysis.An HBV subgroup (n = 33) and a non-HBV group (n = 16; including metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), autoimmune, and toxic hepatitis) were analyzed separately to assess VMRE performance across different etiologies.Results Initially, 59 patients were enrolled.After excluding 10 patients due to MRI contraindications, hepatic iron overload, or inadequate image quality, 49 patients were included in the final analysis (mean age 48.2 14.9 years; 28 males, 21 females; 67% HBV-positive).VMRE demonstrated significant limitations in clinical utility, failing to discriminate fibrosis stages in the overall cohort (AUC 0.45-0.51,p > 0.05).While HBV-infected patients showed some promise with an overall significant variation across stages (p = 0.004), post-hoc analysis revealed VMRE could only distinguish between the extreme ends of the fibrosis spectrum (F0 vs. F4: adjusted p = 0.0058).This restricted diagnostic capability was reflected in the HBV subgroup's modest AUC values of 0.75-0.76,which remained below clinical acceptability thresholds.In striking contrast, ultrasound elastography exhibited robust performance across all analyses.It achieved excellent diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.86-0.95) with highly significant p-values (< 0.001) for all fibrosis classifications, along with clinically practical Correction to: Abdominal Radiology

Abdominal Radiology
Ondokuz Mayıs University (TR), State Hospital (GB), Sivas State Hospital (TR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Liver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Correction: Evaluation of liver fibrosis using diffusion-weighted virtual magnetic resonance elastography and ultrasound elastography · Abdominal Radiology (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS