Correction: Evaluation of liver fibrosis using diffusion-weighted virtual magnetic resonance elastography and ultrasound elastography
Year: 2026
Type: erratum
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 (2026) 51:3-13 h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / s 0 0 2 6 1 -0 2 5 -0 5 0 4 3 -2The original version of this article contained error in Abstract section.In Abstract under "Materials and Methods" heading, the references were included erroneously and it should be removed.For completeness and transparency, the both incorrect and correct Abstract sections are displayed below.
Source: Abdominal Radiology
Institution: Ondokuz Mayıs University
Language: English
Subfield: Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $4,790
OpenAlex ID: W7140196643
Cites:
Cited by:
Related to: