Liver fat was verified by abdominal MRI (Signa Explorer 1.5T, General Electric Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA) and quantified as mean percentage (%). A mean intrahepatic fat ≥6.4% was considered clinically relevant [26 (link)]. Elastography/Fibroscan on the other hand provided an estimation of liver stiffness that in turn is affected by fat infiltration [27 (link)].
Signa explorer 1.5t
Manufactured by GE Healthcare
Sourced in United States
The Signa Explorer 1.5T is a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system developed by GE Healthcare. It is a 1.5 Tesla superconducting magnet designed for clinical imaging applications.
Automatically generated - may contain errors
17 protocols using signa explorer 1.5t
1
Quantifying Liver Fat and Stiffness
2
Quantifying Liver Fat using Abdominal MRI
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Abdominal MRI (Signa Explorer 1.5T, General Electric Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA) was used to quantify liver fat as mean percentage (%). A mean intrahepatic fat contents (IFC) ≥6.4% was considered clinically relevant [25 (link)]. In the current paper, authors considered that a reversion of IFC occurred when subjects lowered their mean IFC to ≥6.4%, and an amelioration of the liver was when subjects could lower their mean IFC from 1 point and on of change of the percentage.
3
Dietary Intervention for Obese NAFLD Patients
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The current study was a multicenter (Mallorca and Navarra, Spain) prospective randomized trial, with personalized nutritional intervention based on a Mediterranean diet, to evaluate whether and to which extent customized dietary and physical activity intervention ameliorate NAFLD among obese patients with Metabolic Syndrome. Inclusion criteria were aged 40–60 years, Body Mass Index (BMI) between 27 and 40 kg/m2, NAFLD diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; Signa Explorer 1.5T, General Electric Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA), and with MetS traits as described by the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) consensus [9 ]. Exclusion criteria were previous cardiovascular disease, congestive heart failure, liver diseases (other than NAFLD), cancer or a history of malignancy in the previous 5 years, previous bariatric surgery, acute febrile illnesses, urinary tract infections, post-renal hematuria, hemochromatosis, protein overload, non-medicated depression or anxiety, alcohol and drug abuse, pregnancy, primary endocrinological diseases (other than hypothyroidism and type 2 diabetes mellitus), concomitant therapy with steroids, intense physical exercise, or being unable to provide informed consent.
4
Quantifying Intrahepatic Fat using MRI
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Intrahepatic fat contents (IFC) were performed with a 1.5-T Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) (Signa Explorer 1.5T, General Electric Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA) by using a 12-channel phased-array coil [18 (link)]. Abdominal MRI allows quantification of the liver fat as a mean percentage, and a mean IFC ≥ 6.4% was established as clinically relevant [19 (link)].
5
MRI Assessment of NAFLD Progression
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
As previously mentioned, patients had to undergo an MRI (Signa Explorer 1.5T, General Electric Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA) [14 (link)] to confirm a diagnosis of NAFLD, and later, to measure progression in the amount of liver fat (expressed as a percentage).
Again, in the original study, the MRI was to be performed at baseline, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years; for the present manuscript, the MRI results used for the analysis were those closest to pre- and post-lockdown.
Again, in the original study, the MRI was to be performed at baseline, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years; for the present manuscript, the MRI results used for the analysis were those closest to pre- and post-lockdown.
6
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Analysis of Tumor ADC
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Magnetic resonance imaging scans were conducted using a Signa HDe or Signa Explorer 1.5‐T scanner (GE Healthcare) with an eight‐channel phased‐array coil. Fast spin‐echo T2‐weighted images (T2W) and DWI (b = 0, 20, 800 s/mm2) were obtained. The mean ADC values (×10−3 mm2/s) of tumors were measured in regions of interest (ROI) with manual tracing from ADC maps using Synapse Vincent software (FujiFilm Medical), which automatically calculates the mean, minimum, and maximum values that are displayed as a free‐form green line (Figure 1 ). The mean ADC value chosen was consistent with the literature. ROIs included most of the areas of the homogeneous solid portions of tumors while avoiding the most peripheral portions to exclude partial‐volume effects of adjacent uninvolved tissues.29 In multiple metastasis cases, we measured its greatest diameter in the axial plane on non‐contrast T1W images. When the tumor had a necrotic component, conventional T2W, DWI, and contrast‐enhanced T1W images were used, avoiding cystic or necrotic parts.30 We used the median ADC value (1.27 × 10−3 mm2/s) as the cut‐off to divide patients into ADC‐high (n = 30) and ADC‐low (n = 30) groups.
7
Metabolic Syndrome and NAFLD Study
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The study population comprised 155 community-dwelling adults (men and women aged 40–60 years), who were overweight or obese (body mass index (BMI) between 27 and 40 kg/m2), had a diagnosis by magnetic resonance imaging of NAFLD (Signa Explorer 1.5T, General Electric Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA) [19 (link)], and met at least three criteria for the metabolic syndrome according to the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) [20 ]. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are available elsewhere [18 ]. Recruitment and randomization are shown in the study flow-chart (Figure 1 ). The study protocol and procedures were performed following the Declaration of Helsinki ethical standards and approved by the Ethics Committee of Research of Balearic Islands (ref. IB 2251/14 PI; approved on 26 February 2020). All participants were informed about the study, and they provided written informed consent prior to participation.
8
Diagnosis of NAFLD Using MRI
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Randomized patients presented a diagnosis of NAFLD by ultrasound at baseline, nevertheless presence of liver fat was verified by abdominal MRI (Signa Explorer 1.5T, General Electric Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA, or Siemens Aera 1.5T, Siemens Medical Systems, Erlangen, Germany; depending on the recruiting center) and quantified as mean percentage (%). A mean intrahepatic fat ≥6.4% was considered clinically relevant [35 (link)].
9
MRI Diagnosis of NAFLD Liver Fat
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
For liver imaging, participants had to undergo a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to confirm the diagnosis of NAFLD and to know the amount of liver fat (Signa Explorer 1.5T, General Electric Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA) [20 (link)].
10
Measurement of Liver Fat Content
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Using abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, Signa Explorer 1.5T, General Electric Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA), liver fat was confirmed and measured as mean percentage (%). A mean intrahepatic fat content ≥ 6.4% was considered clinically significant [30 (link)].
Two groups were formed according to changes in intrahepatic fat content: participants that increased intrahepatic fat content (IIFC) and participants that reduced intrahepatic fat content (RIFC).
Two groups were formed according to changes in intrahepatic fat content: participants that increased intrahepatic fat content (IIFC) and participants that reduced intrahepatic fat content (RIFC).
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!