Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 27 references

Technical recommendation on multiplex MR elastography for tomographic mapping of abdominal stiffness with a focus on the pancreas and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Four drivers and 30–60 Hz waves map whole-abdomen stiffness

desk verdict A practical, systematic MRE setup comparison with a clear recommendation, but the 'tomographic mapping' claim leans on a wave-presence proxy rather than validated stiffness accuracy. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20093 v1 pith:FFO5N3D4 submitted 2025-05-26 physics.med-ph physics.bio-ph

Jakob Schattenfroh , Salma Almutawakel , Jan Bieling , Johannes Castelein , Melanie Estrella , Philippe Garteiser , Viktor Hartung , Karl H. Hillebrandt
show 16 more authors
Adrian T. Huber Laura Körner Thomas Kröncke Thomas Malinka Hans-Jonas Meyer Tom Meyer Uwe Pelzer Felix Pfister Igor M. Sauer Anna Speth Bernard E. Van Beers Carsten Warmuth Nienke P. M. Wassenaar Yanglei Wu Rolf Reiter Ingolf Sack
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-phphysics.bio-ph
keywords MRelastographymultifrequencymulti-drivershearwavespeedpancreaspancreaticductaladenocarcinomaabdominalstiffnessmappingtomoelastography
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Standard single-driver MR elastography often fails to send measurable shear waves into deep abdominal organs, and the pancreas is the hardest case. This paper argues that multiplex MRE — four independent drivers vibrating the abdomen at 30–60 Hz simultaneously — is the technical configuration that makes whole-abdomen tomographic stiffness mapping practical. In 18 healthy volunteers, coverage with wave amplitudes above the 4 µm noise threshold rose from a median of 24.2% (single driver, 60 Hz) to 99.9% (four drivers, 30–60 Hz), and the pancreas was sufficiently covered in every subject only in the multiplex configuration. The same setup covered 99.1% of the pancreas and 96.3% of the abdomen in 14 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, in a free-breathing scan under three minutes. The paper treats wave amplitude above 4 µm as the quality gate for reliable stiffness reconstruction and, on that basis, recommends this setup for tomographic abdominal MRE.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is multiplex shear-wave excitation: four independent compressed-air drivers placed around the chest, driven at four frequencies (30, 40, 50, 60 Hz) whose wave fields are combined in one acquisition. Lower frequencies produce larger displacement amplitudes (mode 15.5 µm at 30 Hz versus 4.6 µm at 60 Hz), and more drivers make the field more homogeneous, pushing the fraction of abdominal voxels above the 4 µm noise threshold from roughly a quarter to nearly all. Displacement amplitudes above that threshold define wave coverage, and the k-MDEV inversion method converts the multifrequency shear-wave data into shear-wave speed maps.

What would settle it

Acquire multiplex MRE with four drivers at 30–60 Hz of a tissue-mimicking phantom with known shear modulus, then compare shear-wave speed estimates in voxels whose displacement amplitudes sit just above the 4 µm threshold against the phantom's known value; if those voxels are systematically biased, the coverage percentages overstate tomographic accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that multiplex MRE with at least four drivers and multiple vibration frequencies between 30 and 60 Hz enables tomographic mapping of tissue stiffness across the entire abdomen, including the pancreas. The authors show that both ingredients matter: the number of drivers raises and homogenizes shear-wave displacement amplitudes, while including lower frequencies adds larger-amplitude waves, and only the four-driver, four-frequency combination reached 99.9% median abdominal coverage in healthy volunteers and 99.1% pancreatic coverage in PDAC patients. They state this as a technical recommendation for any center wanting tomographic abdominal MRE, noting that the setup costs little, uses parallel pressure tubes from one air outlet, and fits into routine protocols at under three minutes of scan time.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on treating shear-wave displacement amplitude above a fixed 4 µm threshold, calibrated from vibration-off noise in healthy volunteers, as proof that stiffness maps in those voxels are tomographically reliable, and on carrying that threshold into patients unchanged.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single free-breathing MRE acquisition under three minutes can produce tomographic stiffness maps of liver, spleen, kidney, and pancreas at once.
  • Pancreatic tissue, the organ most often failed by single-driver MRE, is covered above the quality threshold in all 18 healthy volunteers and all 14 PDAC patients with the multiplex setup.
  • Including frequencies down to 30 Hz is essential, since lower frequencies carry the largest wave amplitudes and improve the sharpness of the stiffness maps.
  • The reported healthy reference shear-wave speeds (pancreas 1.31 ± 0.12 m/s, liver 1.36 ± 0.10 m/s, kidney 2.06 ± 0.29 m/s, spleen 2.08 ± 0.32 m/s) can serve as a baseline for detecting stiffness changes in abdominal disease.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper validates coverage, not stiffness accuracy; the next testable step is to compare multiplex-MRE shear-wave speed in the pancreas and in PDAC against histology or endoscopic ultrasound elastography in the same lesions.
  • Because the 4 µm threshold was calibrated in healthy, normal-BMI volunteers, applying the same threshold to patients with ascites, high BMI, or post-surgical anatomy is an assumption the paper flags for future testing; a per-subject noise calibration would remove that risk.
  • If amplitude coverage is confirmed to imply accuracy, multiplex MRE could be combined with other quantitative MRI readouts to screen for systemic mechanical changes, such as early liver involvement before metastasis in pancreatic cancer.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a technical evaluation of multiplex MR elastography—combining up to four independent pneumatic drivers and vibration frequencies in the 30–60 Hz range—for whole-abdomen stiffness mapping with emphasis on the pancreas. Eighteen healthy volunteers each underwent 16 MRE acquisitions covering all combinations of one to four drivers and frequency sets (60, 50–60, 40–60, 30–60 Hz) plus a no-vibration null acquisition; 14 patients with PDAC were retrospectively analyzed with the four-driver/four-frequency setup. Coverage was defined as the percentage of voxels with harmonic displacement amplitudes above a 4 µm threshold derived from the probability density intercept of vibration-on versus vibration-off amplitudes. The authors report that multi-driver, multi-frequency MRE increases abdominal wave coverage from a median of 24.2% (single-driver, 60 Hz) to 99.9% (four drivers, 30–60 Hz), achieves >60% pancreas coverage in all healthy volunteers (vs. 2/18 for single-driver, single-frequency), and yields 99.1% pancreas coverage in PDAC patients. They conclude that multiplex MRE enables tomographic stiffness mapping of the abdomen, including the pancreas, in under 3 minutes of free-breathing acquisition.

Significance. The study provides a valuable systematic comparison of driver/frequency configurations and a practical recommendation for a feasible clinical setup. Its strengths include a rigorous prospective protocol (17 examinations per healthy volunteer, with a null control), clear statistical testing of driver and frequency effects, an openly available inversion pipeline, and a separate patient cohort. The coverage data convincingly show that four drivers and 30–60 Hz excitation propagate waves more uniformly throughout the abdomen than single-driver/single-frequency excitation. However, the central claim that the multiplex configuration 'enables tomographic mapping' is not directly established: the evidence is based on wave-presence coverage above a noise floor, not on validation of reconstructed shear-wave speed accuracy. If that gap is closed with a phantom or reference-standard comparison, the work would be a solid technical recommendation; in its current form, the significance is real but the conclusion is overreaching.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods, Quality Metrics (2); Results, Figures 3A, 4C, 6] The 4 µm threshold is defined operationally as the PDF intercept of vibration-on versus vibration-off amplitudes in the same healthy-volunteer cohort, and all coverage and success claims are based on it. This threshold is a sensible noise floor for wave presence, but the manuscript provides no evidence that displacement amplitude above this threshold is sufficient for accurate shear-wave speed reconstruction by k-MDEV. Reflections, mode conversion, partial-volume effects, and unfavorable illumination geometry can bias SWS even in voxels with amplitudes above 4 µm; image sharpness (variance of Laplacian) measures anatomical contrast, not quantitative accuracy. No phantom with known stiffness, no reference-standard comparison, and no cross-configuration consistency analysis is presented. Consequently, the reported coverage percentages support 'waves were present in these voxels,' not 'stiffness was correctly reconstructed in these voxels,' and the conclusion that multiplex MRE 'enables tomographic mapping' is not established. A phantom validation or a comparison of SWS against an independent reference, or at least an analysis demonstrating that SWS is insensitive to driver configuration in well-covered voxels, is needed to support the central claim.
  2. [Results, Supplemental Table S1] The reported SWS values depend substantially on the number of drivers even for a fixed frequency set; for example, in the kidney at 60 Hz, SWS increases from 2.30±0.27 m/s (one driver) to 2.77±0.30 m/s (four drivers), and at 30–60 Hz from 1.65±0.22 to 2.06±0.29 m/s; similar but smaller shifts are seen in liver and pancreas. If the method were already tomographically accurate wherever the wave amplitude exceeds the threshold, the reconstructed SWS for a given frequency set should not change systematically with driver count. This driver-count dependence suggests that coverage alone does not guarantee inversion accuracy and that the four-driver configuration may still yield biased SWS estimates in some regions. The authors should quantify and discuss these differences, and validate the recommended configuration against a reference standard before claiming that the multiplex setup enables tomographic mapping.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Results] The statement 'Superficial organs were adequately assessed in all configurations' is contradicted by Figure 6, where single-driver 60 Hz MRE achieved a >60% coverage success rate in only 4/18 (22%) of volunteers for the liver; please rephrase or provide a different definition of 'adequately assessed.'
  2. [Results, Figure 3B and Table 2] The sentence 'mean amplitudes and IQR decreased with -0.38 µm/Hz ... and -0.06 µm/Hz' should read 'decreased at rates of 0.38 µm/Hz and 0.06 µm/Hz' to avoid the awkward double negative.
  3. [Methods, MRE Setup and Acquisition] The sentence 'Patients with PDAC were investigated with an MRE setup similar to the multiplex study... Details of MRI scanners and sequences are provided in [13]' refers to a prior publication; because the PDAC results are used to validate the recommendation, the imaging parameters and processing pipeline should be described with sufficient detail in this manuscript or in a way that is transparent to the reader.
  4. [Discussion] The reference values for liver, kidney, spleen, and pancreas SWS are presented without confidence intervals or information on the number of subjects used for each value; please specify the configuration and sample size for these reference values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the study reports empirical coverage measurements under an explicit operational noise threshold, and its reconstruction/validation citations are to independent prior work.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison of MRE configurations in terms of measured shear-wave coverage. The 4 µm displacement threshold is an operational noise floor estimated from the vibration-on versus vibration-off PDF in the same cohort, and coverage percentages are descriptive measurements relative to that fixed criterion. This is a data-driven threshold choice, not a fitted parameter that is then renamed as a prediction. The conclusion that multiplex MRE 'enables tomographic mapping' goes beyond what coverage alone can prove, but that is an inference/validity gap, not a circular reduction: no equation in the paper defines tomographic accuracy as equivalent to the threshold crossing. The k-MDEV reconstruction is cited to previously published, publicly available method papers (refs. 19, 20) rather than being justified by the present results, and the PDAC cohort is drawn from an earlier published study (ref. 13) with new measurements reported here. Thus, no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own input, and no self-citation chain is used to force the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The biggest unpaid assumption is that wave coverage above a cohort-derived amplitude threshold is a valid surrogate for tomographic stiffness accuracy. The reconstruction method and ROI definitions are taken from prior published work without independent validation in this cohort. No new physical entities or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Shear-wave amplitude threshold = 4.0 ± 0.3 µm
    Set as the PDF intercept of vibration-on versus vibration-off amplitudes in the same 18 healthy volunteers; used to define wave coverage and MRE success.
  • SWS exclusion threshold = 1 m/s
    Voxels with frequency-averaged SWS below 1 m/s were excluded to reduce boundary effects from vessels and slip interfaces.
  • Organ success threshold = 60% of organ voxels
    Chosen by the authors as the feasibility criterion for organ-specific MRE success; 25% and 95% alternatives are in supplements.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Displacement amplitudes above the 4 µm PDF-intercept threshold correspond to usable shear-wave fields for stiffness inversion.
    The study's coverage and success metrics assume this proxy without validating reconstructed SWS against known stiffness.
  • domain assumption k-MDEV multifrequency inversion recovers accurate shear-wave speed from the measured wave fields.
    Reconstruction relies on the publicly available k-MDEV method from prior work; no in-study validation against phantoms or mechanical reference.
  • domain assumption Organ ROIs drawn on MRE magnitude images by one physicist are anatomically correct.
    All coverage and SWS statistics depend on these ROIs; inter-reader variability is not reported.
  • standard math The harmonic wave field is sufficiently captured at the fundamental vibration frequency.
    Displacement amplitudes are computed as total amplitudes of complex wave images at the fundamental frequency, implicitly assuming linear, time-harmonic tissue response.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Technical recommendation on multiplex MR elastography for tomographic mapping of abdominal stiffness with a focus on the pancreas and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FFO5N3D4

@misc{pith2026250520093,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Technical recommendation on multiplex MR elastography for tomographic mapping of abdominal stiffness with a focus on the pancreas and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FFO5N3D4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20093}
}
read the original abstract

Objectives: MR elastography (MRE) offers valuable mechanical tissue characterization, however, in deep abdominal organs like the pancreas conventional single-driver, single-frequency approaches often fail. This study evaluates whether multiplex MRE using multiple drivers and vibration frequencies can overcome these limitations. Methods: This study used single-shot spin-echo MRE in 18 healthy volunteers targeting the liver, pancreas, kidneys, and spleen. Each healthy volunteer underwent 16 MRE examinations with different sets of four vibration frequencies (30-60 Hz) and four driver combinations, and an additional null experiment without vibrations. Further, a cohort of 14 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) were retrospectively assessed. The quality of shear-wave fields and stiffness maps was assessed by displacement amplitudes and image sharpness. Results: In healthy volunteers, abdominal coverage with displacement amplitudes above the pre-determined noise level of 4 {\mu}m varied between MRE configurations: 24.2% ([0.0%-56.2%], single-driver, 60 Hz), 66.9% ([24.8%-97.7%], single-driver, 30-60 Hz), 70.2% ([0.0%-92.5%], multi-driver, 60 Hz) and 99.9% ([89.4%-100%], multi-driver, 30-60 Hz). In the pancreas, >60% coverage was achieved in all subjects using four drivers and multiple frequencies. This was achieved in only 2/18 subjects using single-driver/single-frequency MRE. Patients with PDAC had 99.1% [91.4%-100%] coverage in the pancreas and 96.3% [63.1%-100%] abdominal coverage (multi-driver, 30-60 Hz). Conclusion: MRE with four drivers and multiple vibration frequencies between 30-60 Hz enables tomographic mapping of tissue stiffness across the entire abdomen, including the pancreas. Multiplex MRE offers a promising approach for generating detailed images of abdominal stiffness, potentially enhancing clinical diagnostics for abdominal and pancreatic diseases.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    MR elastography: Principles, guidelines, and terminology

    Manduca A, Bayly PV , Ehman RL, et al. MR elastography: Principles, guidelines, and terminology. Magn Reson Med. 2021;85(5):2377-2390. doi:10.1002/mrm.28627

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.28627 2021

  2. [2]

    Advanced Imaging Techniques for Assessing Fat, Iron, and Fibrosis in Chronic Liver Disease

    Narayanasamy S, Franca M, Idilman IS, et al. Advanced Imaging Techniques for Assessing Fat, Iron, and Fibrosis in Chronic Liver Disease. Gut Liver. 2025;19(1):31-42. doi:10.5009/gnl240302

    work page doi:10.5009/gnl240302 2025

  3. [3]

    MR Elastography of the Abdomen: Experimental Protocols

    Serai SD, Yin M. MR Elastography of the Abdomen: Experimental Protocols. In: Pohlmann A, Niendorf T, eds. Preclinical MRI of the Kidney: Methods and Protocols. Springer US; 2021:519-546. doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-0978-1_32

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-0978-1_32 2021

  4. [4]

    Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Relating Biomechanics and Prognosis

    MacCurtain BM, Quirke NP , Thorpe SD, et al. Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Relating Biomechanics and Prognosis. J Clin Med. 2021;10(12):2711. doi:10.3390/jcm10122711

    work page doi:10.3390/jcm10122711 2021

  5. [5]

    Splanchnic vasodilation and hyperdynamic circulatory syndrome in cirrhosis

    Bolognesi M, Di Pascoli M, Verardo A, et al. Splanchnic vasodilation and hyperdynamic circulatory syndrome in cirrhosis. World J Gastroenterol WJG. 2014;20(10):2555-2563. doi:10.3748/wjg.v20.i10.2555

    work page doi:10.3748/wjg.v20.i10.2555 2014

  6. [6]

    Guo J, Büning C, Schott E, et al. In Vivo Abdominal Magnetic Resonance Elastography for the Assessment of Portal Hypertension Before and After Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Implantation: Invest Radiol. 2015;50(5):347-351. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000136

    work page doi:10.1097/rli.0000000000000136 2015

  7. [7]

    Exosome-delivered CD44v6/C1QBP complex drives pancreatic cancer liver metastasis by promoting fibrotic liver microenvironment

    Xie Z, Gao Y , Ho C, et al. Exosome-delivered CD44v6/C1QBP complex drives pancreatic cancer liver metastasis by promoting fibrotic liver microenvironment. Gut. 2022;71(3):568-579. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2020-323014

    work page doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2020-323014 2022

  8. [8]

    Magnetic Resonance Elastography

    Venkatesh SK, Ehman RL, eds. Magnetic Resonance Elastography. Springer New York; 2014. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-1575-0

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-1575-0 2014

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    3D vector MR elastography applications in small organs

    Atamaniuk V , Hańczyk Ł, Chen J, et al. 3D vector MR elastography applications in small organs. Magn Reson Imaging. 2024;112:54-62. doi:10.1016/j.mri.2024.06.005

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Practical approach to quantitative liver and pancreas MRI in children

    Kemp JM, Ghosh A, Dillman JR, et al. Practical approach to quantitative liver and pancreas MRI in children. Pediatr Radiol. 2025;55(1):36-57. doi:10.1007/s00247-024-06133-x

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    Magnetic resonance elastography from fundamental soft-tissue mechanics to diagnostic imaging

    Sack I. Magnetic resonance elastography from fundamental soft-tissue mechanics to diagnostic imaging. Nat Rev Phys. 2022;5(1):25-42. doi:10.1038/s42254-022-00543-2 16 / 28

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Abdominal MR elastography with multiple driver arrays: performance and repeatability

    Chen J, Chen J, Heilman JA, et al. Abdominal MR elastography with multiple driver arrays: performance and repeatability. Abdom Radiol. 2023;48(6):1945-

    2023

  5. [13]

    Tomoelastography for Measurement of Tumor Volume Related to Tissue Stiffness in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinomas

    Marticorena Garcia SR, Zhu L, Gültekin E, et al. Tomoelastography for Measurement of Tumor Volume Related to Tissue Stiffness in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinomas. Invest Radiol. 2020;55(12):769. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000704

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Tomoelastography of the prostate using multifrequency MR elastography and externally placed pressurized‐air drivers

    Dittmann F , Reiter R, Guo J, et al. Tomoelastography of the prostate using multifrequency MR elastography and externally placed pressurized‐air drivers. Magn Reson Med. 2018;79(3):1325-1333. doi:10.1002/mrm.26769

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Elastography of the Pancreas: Bowel Preparation and Repeatability Assessment in Pancreatic Cancer Patients and Healthy Controls

    Wassenaar NPM, Van Schelt A, Schrauben EM, et al. Elastography of the Pancreas: Bowel Preparation and Repeatability Assessment in Pancreatic Cancer Patients and Healthy Controls. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2024;59(5):1582-1592. doi:10.1002/jmri.28918

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Reduction of breathing artifacts in multifrequency magnetic resonance elastography of the abdomen

    Shahryari M, Meyer T, Warmuth C, et al. Reduction of breathing artifacts in multifrequency magnetic resonance elastography of the abdomen. Magn Reson Med. 2021;85(4):1962-1973. doi:10.1002/mrm.28558

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Free-breathing motion corrected magnetic resonance elastography of the abdomen

    Van Schelt AS, Wassenaar NPM, Runge JH, et al. Free-breathing motion corrected magnetic resonance elastography of the abdomen. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2024;14(5):3447-3460. doi:10.21037/qims-23-1727

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Statistical Parametric Mapping: The Analysis of Functional Brain Images

    Friston KJ. Statistical Parametric Mapping: The Analysis of Functional Brain Images. 1st ed. Elsevier / Academic Press; 2007

    2007

  11. [19]

    Tomoelastography by multifrequency wave number recovery from time-harmonic propagating shear waves

    Tzschätzsch H, Guo J, Dittmann F , et al. Tomoelastography by multifrequency wave number recovery from time-harmonic propagating shear waves. Med Image Anal. 2016;30:1-10. doi:10.1016/j.media.2016.01.001

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Comparison of inversion methods in MR elastography: An open-access pipeline for processing multifrequency shear-wave data and demonstration in a phantom, human kidneys, and brain

    Meyer T, Marticorena Garcia S, Tzschätzsch H, et al. Comparison of inversion methods in MR elastography: An open-access pipeline for processing multifrequency shear-wave data and demonstration in a phantom, human kidneys, and brain. Magn Reson Med. 2022;88(4):1840-1850. doi:10...

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Diagnostic performance of tomoelastography of the liver and spleen for staging hepatic fibrosis

    Reiter R, Tzschätzsch H, Schwahofer F , et al. Diagnostic performance of tomoelastography of the liver and spleen for staging hepatic fibrosis. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(3):1719-1729. doi:10.1007/s00330-019-06471-7

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Rapid MR elastography of the liver for subsecond stiffness sampling

    Anders M, Meyer T, Warmuth C, et al. Rapid MR elastography of the liver for subsecond stiffness sampling. Magn Reson Med. 2024;91(1):312-324. doi:10.1002/mrm.29859

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Accuracy of liver and spleen stiffness on magnetic resonance elastography for detecting portal hypertension: a 17 / 28 systematic review and meta-analysis

    Singh R, Wilson MP , Katlariwala P , et al. Accuracy of liver and spleen stiffness on magnetic resonance elastography for detecting portal hypertension: a 17 / 28 systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;32(2):237-245. doi:10.1097/MEG.0000000000001724

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    Magnetic Resonance Elastography of Liver: Current Status and Future Directions

    Chatterjee A, Miller FH, Pang E. Magnetic Resonance Elastography of Liver: Current Status and Future Directions. J Gastrointest Abdom Radiol. 2024;07(03):215-225. doi:10.1055/s-0044-1786812

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    MR Elastography in Cancer

    Guo J, Savic LJ, Hillebrandt KH, et al. MR Elastography in Cancer. Invest Radiol. 2023;58(8):578-586. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000971

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Response comparison of PLC and SLC with magnetic resonance elastography after TACE

    Haas Y , Dosch MP , Vogl TJ. Response comparison of PLC and SLC with magnetic resonance elastography after TACE. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):8317. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-12478-w 18 / 28 Table 1: Imaging parameters for abdominal multiplex MRE at 3-Tesla MRI Parameter Value Coil Tx: bod...

    2022 doi

  19. [1954]

    doi:10.1007/s00261-023-03866-5

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.