Guide › Magnetic Resonance Elastography (MRE) & PDFF: Principles, Performance, and Clinical Use in MASLD

Magnetic Resonance Elastography (MRE) & PDFF: Principles, Performance, and Clinical Use in MASLD

1. Introduction

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has emerged as the cornerstone of non-invasive liver assessment in the modern era of hepatology. While Part 1 of this series explored ultrasound-based elastography techniques including FibroScan and shear wave elastography, this chapter focuses on MRI-based methodologies that have become indispensable in both clinical practice and research settings for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).

The evolution from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) terminology to MASLD, established through a multi-society Delphi consensus process in June 2023, reflects our growing understanding of the metabolic underpinnings of hepatic steatosis (Rinella et al., 2023). This nomenclature change emphasizes the presence of cardiometabolic risk factors as a defining characteristic, and importantly, studies have demonstrated that findings from the NAFLD literature can be fully extrapolated to individuals with MASLD (EASL-EASD-EASO, 2024).

MRI has become the non-invasive gold standard for comprehensive liver composition analysis for several compelling reasons. Unlike ultrasound-based techniques, MRI can simultaneously assess multiple hepatic parameters—including fat content, iron concentration, inflammation, and fibrosis—in a single examination session (Hoodeshenas et al., 2018). This multiparametric capability is particularly valuable in MASLD, where overlapping pathophysiological processes often coexist.

Think of MRI as a sophisticated camera that can see inside your liver in ways that ultrasound cannot. While ultrasound uses sound waves (like a bat uses echolocation), MRI uses powerful magnets and radio waves to create detailed pictures. What makes MRI special for liver disease is that it can measure several different things at once—how much fat is in your liver, whether there’s too much iron, if there’s inflammation, and how stiff or scarred the liver has become. It’s like getting multiple tests in one scan, without any needles or radiation.

Role of MRI in MASLD/MASH Research, Drug Development, and Clinical Care

The pharmaceutical industry has increasingly recognized MRI-based biomarkers as essential endpoints in clinical trials for MASLD therapeutics. Proton density fat fraction (PDFF) serves as a primary endpoint for demonstrating reduction in hepatic steatosis, while magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) provides objective assessment of fibrosis changes (Loomba et al., 2021). The recent FDA approval of resmetirom for non-cirrhotic MASH with significant fibrosis was supported in part by MRI-based efficacy data from the MAESTRO-NASH trial, highlighting the regulatory acceptance of these biomarkers (Harrison et al., 2024).

Advantages Over Ultrasound-Based Techniques

MRI offers several key advantages over ultrasound-based elastography:

  1. Lower technical failure rates: MRE demonstrates technical success rates exceeding 95% regardless of body mass index (BMI), compared to vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) or fibroscan failure rates of 5-40% in obese individuals (Singh et al., 2015; Pepin et al., 2019).

  2. Larger sampling volume: MRE evaluates the entire cross-section of the liver, reducing sampling error compared to the small volume assessed by VCTE (Venkatesh et al., 2018).

  3. Quantitative accuracy: PDFF provides true percentage-based fat quantification independent of scanner vendor or field strength, superior to the controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) from FibroScan (Yokoo et al., 2018).

  4. Performance in obesity: MRE maintains excellent diagnostic accuracy in severely obese patients as long as they can fit within the scanner bore, whereas VCTE performance degrades significantly with increasing BMI (Park et al., 2017).

2. Fundamentals of Liver MRI

2.1 MRI Physics Overview

Understanding MRI physics is essential for interpreting liver imaging studies. At its core, MRI exploits the magnetic properties of hydrogen protons, which are abundant in water and fat molecules throughout the body.

When placed in a strong magnetic field, hydrogen protons align with the field direction. Radiofrequency pulses temporarily disturb this alignment, and as protons return to their equilibrium state, they emit signals that are detected and converted into images. The rate at which protons return to equilibrium is characterized by relaxation times, which differ based on tissue composition (Reeder et al., 2011).

Key Relaxation Parameters:

  • T1 (longitudinal relaxation time): Measures the time for protons to realign with the magnetic field after excitation. T1 is prolonged in the presence of inflammation, fibrosis, and edema—making it a useful marker of liver disease activity.

  • T2 (transverse relaxation time): Reflects the time for protons to lose phase coherence with each other. T2 is shortened in the presence of iron, making it useful for iron quantification.

  • T2* (T2-star): A more sensitive measure than T2 that also accounts for magnetic field inhomogeneities. T2* is the primary parameter used for liver iron concentration (LIC) measurement.

Multi-echo chemical shift imaging leverages the difference in resonance frequencies between water and fat protons. By acquiring images at multiple echo times, sophisticated algorithms can separate and quantify water and fat signals, forming the basis of PDFF measurement (Reeder et al., 2012).

MRI works by detecting the behavior of hydrogen atoms in your body—and your body is mostly made of water, which contains hydrogen. When you lie in an MRI machine, a powerful magnet causes these hydrogen atoms to line up in a certain way. Then, the machine sends in radio waves that briefly knock these atoms out of alignment. As the atoms snap back into place, they give off tiny signals that the machine detects and uses to create pictures. Different tissues (like fat, water, or scar tissue) cause the atoms to behave slightly differently, which is how the MRI can tell them apart. The key measurements—called T1, T2, and T2*—essentially measure how fast the atoms return to their normal state, which tells us about the health of the liver tissue.

2.2 MRI Machine Specifications That Matter for Liver Imaging

Field Strength: 1.5T vs 3T

The majority of clinical liver MRI is performed at either 1.5 Tesla (T) or 3.0 Tesla field strength. Each has advantages for specific applications:

  • 1.5T: Often preferred for MRE due to smoother shear wave propagation and fewer susceptibility artifacts. Also provides excellent PDFF measurements with well-established calibrations (Liang et al., 2023).

  • 3T: Offers higher signal-to-noise ratio, enabling faster acquisitions and higher resolution imaging. Works well for PDFF and iron quantification, though MRE may require modified protocols (Yin et al., 2017).

Importantly, modern quantitative techniques like PDFF have been validated to produce equivalent results across field strengths, enabling multi-center studies and longitudinal monitoring regardless of which scanner is used (Yokoo et al., 2018).

Gradient Strength and Coil Design

High-performance gradient systems enable faster imaging and improved spatial resolution. Phased-array coil technology, with multiple receiver elements positioned around the abdomen, provides enhanced signal detection across the liver.

Breath-Hold Capability and Motion Correction

The liver moves significantly with respiration. Most liver MRI sequences are performed during breath-holds of 10-20 seconds to minimize motion artifacts. For patients who cannot hold their breath adequately, respiratory-triggered or navigated sequences can be employed, though these require longer acquisition times. Motion correction algorithms have become increasingly sophisticated, improving image quality in challenging patients (Sirlin et al., 2014).

Vendor Ecosystem

The major global MRI manufacturers each offer liver-specific imaging capabilities:

  • Siemens Healthineers (Germany): LiverLab package for quantitative liver assessment
  • Philips Healthcare (Netherlands): mDIXON Quant for fat and iron quantification
  • GE Healthcare (USA): IDEAL IQ for proton density fat fraction; MR Touch for elastography
  • Canon Medical Systems (Japan): Fat fraction quantification sequences
  • United Imaging Healthcare (China): Rapidly expanding MRI manufacturer with growing international presence

3. Magnetic Resonance Elastography (MRE)

3.1 What Is MRE?

Magnetic resonance elastography is a phase-contrast MRI technique that quantifies tissue stiffness by imaging the propagation of mechanical shear waves through the liver. The concept is similar to ultrasound-based shear wave elastography, but MRE offers distinct advantages including larger sampling volume, lower technical failure rates, and independence from acoustic windows (Venkatesh et al., 2018).

MRE is widely considered the most accurate non-invasive test for liver fibrosis staging across all etiologies of chronic liver disease. Multiple meta-analyses have confirmed its superior diagnostic performance compared to other elastography modalities, particularly for detecting early and intermediate stages of fibrosis (Singh et al., 2015; Xiao et al., 2017).

Imagine you’re at a beach, and you want to know how firm the sand is without actually touching it. You could watch how ripples spread when a wave hits the shore—ripples travel faster through firm, wet sand than through soft, dry sand. MRE works on the same principle. A device placed on your abdomen creates gentle vibrations (you might feel a slight buzzing sensation, but it’s not painful). The MRI scanner then takes special pictures that show how these vibration waves travel through your liver. In a healthy, soft liver, the waves travel slowly. In a stiff, scarred liver, the waves travel faster. By measuring wave speed, doctors can determine how much scarring (fibrosis) is present without needing to take a tissue sample.

3.2 How MRE Works

The MRE examination involves three key components (Ehman et al., 2022):

1. Mechanical Wave Generation

An external mechanical driver generates low-frequency (typically 60 Hz) shear waves that propagate through the liver. Two types of drivers are commonly used:

  • Passive pneumatic drivers: A drum-like device placed on the patient’s abdomen, connected by a flexible tube to an active acoustic driver outside the scanner room. This is the most widely used approach.

  • Active electromechanical drivers: Less common, but offer more precise control of vibration parameters.

2. Motion-Encoded MRI Acquisition

Specialized phase-contrast MRI sequences (most commonly gradient-recalled echo or spin-echo echo-planar imaging) capture snapshots of the propagating shear waves. Motion-encoding gradients are synchronized with the mechanical driver to sensitize the images to the tiny tissue displacements (measured in micrometers) caused by the shear waves.

3. Inversion Algorithm Processing

Sophisticated mathematical algorithms (inversion algorithms) analyze the wave images to calculate tissue stiffness. The propagation wavelength is directly related to tissue stiffness—longer wavelengths indicate stiffer tissue. Results are displayed as color-coded stiffness maps (elastograms) with values reported in kilopascals (kPa).

3.3 Diagnostic Performance

MRE demonstrates excellent diagnostic accuracy across all stages of liver fibrosis. The landmark individual participant data meta-analysis by Singh et al. (2015), pooling data from 697 patients across 12 studies, established the following performance metrics:

Fibrosis Stage AUROC Sensitivity Specificity
Any fibrosis (≥F1) 0.84 73% 79%
Significant fibrosis (≥F2) 0.88 79% 81%
Advanced fibrosis (≥F3) 0.93 85% 85%
Cirrhosis (F4) 0.92 91% 81%

More recent data specifically in NAFLD populations demonstrate even higher accuracy. Liang et al. (2023) conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis of 798 NAFLD patients and found:

  • AUROC of 0.92 for significant fibrosis (≥F2)
  • AUROC of 0.92 for advanced fibrosis (≥F3)
  • AUROC of 0.94 for cirrhosis (F4)

Performance Advantages Over Other Elastography Methods

A comprehensive systematic review by Selvaraj et al. (2021) compared elastography techniques in NAFLD and found summary AUROCs for advanced fibrosis of:

  • MRE: 0.92
  • pSWE: 0.89
  • VCTE: 0.85
  • 2D-SWE: 0.72

The technical failure rate of MRE is notably low—approximately 4-6% in most studies, compared to 5-40% for VCTE depending on patient BMI (Singh et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2017).

3.4 Diagnostic Cutoffs

Based on the individual patient data meta-analysis by Liang et al. (2023) in NAFLD, the following MRE stiffness cutoffs are recommended:

Fibrosis Stage MRE Cutoff (kPa)
Normal <2.5
Any fibrosis (≥F1) ≥2.65-3.0
Significant fibrosis (≥F2) ≥3.14
Advanced fibrosis (≥F3) ≥3.53
Cirrhosis (F4) ≥4.45

It is important to note that these cutoffs may vary slightly depending on the MRE technique (2D-GRE vs. 3D-MRE) and the specific patient population. In general practice, a stiffness value below 2.5 kPa is considered normal, while values above 5.0 kPa strongly suggest cirrhosis (Hoodeshenas et al., 2018).

3.5 Strengths of MRE

Best Accuracy and Reproducibility

MRE is the most accurate non-invasive method for liver fibrosis staging. Inter-center reproducibility studies demonstrate excellent agreement, with coefficients of variation of approximately 7% between analysis centers—less than the normal diurnal physiological variation in liver stiffness (Yasar et al., 2022).

Excellent Performance in Obesity

Unlike VCTE, MRE maintains diagnostic accuracy regardless of BMI. Pepin et al. (2019) studied over 1,000 NAFLD patients with a mean BMI of 32 kg/m² and found a 97% technical success rate for MRE. Chen et al. (2017) demonstrated that in patients with severe to morbid obesity, MRE had both higher examination success rates and better inter-observer agreement than VCTE.

Large Region of Interest

MRE evaluates the entire liver cross-section (typically sampling 500-1000 cm³ of liver tissue), compared to the small cylinder of tissue (~1-4 cm³) assessed by VCTE. This larger sampling volume reduces the impact of disease heterogeneity on measurements (Venkatesh et al., 2018).

Independence from Acoustic Windows

Unlike ultrasound-based techniques, MRE is not limited by acoustic access. Measurements can be obtained from any region of the liver with adequate wave penetration, including the left lobe.

3.6 Limitations of MRE

Cost and Availability

MRE requires an MRI scanner with specialized hardware (mechanical driver) and software. The examination is significantly more expensive than VCTE and is not universally available, particularly in resource-limited settings.

Need for MRI-Compatible Drivers

The passive pneumatic driver system must be properly maintained and calibrated. Active drivers require MRI-compatible electronics.

Breath-Holding Requirements

Standard MRE sequences require 10-20 second breath-holds, which may be challenging for patients with respiratory disease or limited cooperation. Free-breathing techniques exist but may have lower reliability.

Contraindications

Standard MRI contraindications apply, including:

  • Certain pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (though many modern devices are MRI-conditional)
  • Certain metallic implants
  • Severe claustrophobia
  • Body habitus exceeding scanner bore dimensions

Technical Failure from Iron Overload

Severe hepatic iron overload can cause signal loss that compromises MRE measurements. Iron deposits shorten T2* and T2 relaxation times, reducing signal available for wave detection. When hepatic iron concentration exceeds approximately 3-4 mg/g dry weight, MRE reliability decreases (Yin et al., 2017).

Ascites

Large-volume ascites can impair shear wave propagation from the external driver into the liver parenchyma, potentially causing technical failure or unreliable measurements.

4. Proton Density Fat Fraction (PDFF)

4.1 What PDFF Measures

Proton density fat fraction (PDFF) is a standardized, quantitative biomarker that expresses liver fat content as the proportion of mobile triglyceride protons relative to the total mobile protons (water plus fat) in tissue (Reeder et al., 2012). Unlike earlier methods of MRI fat quantification that were influenced by technical factors, PDFF is a fundamental tissue property that remains consistent across different scanners, field strengths, and acquisition protocols.

Mathematically, PDFF is defined as:

PDFF = Fat Signal / (Fat Signal + Water Signal) × 100%

This provides a true percentage value that directly correlates with hepatic triglyceride concentration measured by liver biopsy or magnetic resonance spectroscopy (Yokoo et al., 2018).

PDFF is simply a measurement of how much fat is in your liver, expressed as a percentage. Think of your liver as a sponge that normally contains mostly water. In fatty liver disease, some of that water gets replaced by fat droplets. PDFF measures what percentage of the liver’s content is fat. A healthy liver typically has less than 5% fat. If your PDFF is 10%, that means 10% of your liver’s content is fat, which would indicate fatty liver disease. The beauty of PDFF is that it gives the same number regardless of which MRI machine is used or where you have the test done—unlike other methods that can give different results on different machines.

4.2 Why PDFF Is the Gold Standard for Liver Fat

PDFF has become the accepted reference standard for non-invasive liver fat quantification for several reasons:

High Accuracy vs. Biopsy

Meta-analyses demonstrate excellent correlation between PDFF and histological steatosis. Gu et al. (2019) found AUROCs of 0.98 for detecting any steatosis (≥S1), 0.91 for moderate steatosis (≥S2), and 0.92 for severe steatosis (S3). More recently, Azizi et al. (2024) confirmed these findings in a meta-analysis of 22 studies with 2,844 patients.

Sensitivity to Small Changes

PDFF can reliably detect changes as small as 1-2 absolute percentage points, making it ideal for monitoring treatment response in clinical trials. This sensitivity far exceeds what is achievable with liver biopsy, which suffers from sampling variability (Middleton et al., 2017).

Excellent Precision and Reproducibility

A meta-analysis by Yokoo et al. (2018) demonstrated:

  • Excellent linearity with MRS-PDFF (R² = 0.96)
  • Minimal bias (-0.13% mean difference from spectroscopy)
  • High precision across different field strengths, vendors, and reconstruction methods

Use as Primary Endpoint in Drug Trials

PDFF is recognized by regulatory agencies as an acceptable endpoint for demonstrating fat reduction in MASLD clinical trials. A relative reduction of ≥30% in PDFF is commonly used as a response threshold and has been shown to correlate with histological improvement (Stine et al., 2021).

4.3 Acquisition Techniques

PDFF is measured using chemical shift-encoded MRI (CSE-MRI), which acquires gradient-echo images at multiple echo times to separate water and fat signals. Modern sequences incorporate several corrections to ensure accurate quantification:

Multi-Echo Dixon Technique

The foundational approach acquires in-phase and opposed-phase images based on the chemical shift difference between water and fat protons. Advanced implementations use 6 or more echo times to enable robust separation.

Key Technical Features:

  1. T1 bias correction: Using low flip angles to minimize T1-related signal differences between water and fat
  2. T2* correction: Accounting for signal decay from iron or other susceptibility effects
  3. Spectral modeling: Accounting for the multiple peaks in the fat spectrum (not just a single fat peak)
  4. Noise bias correction: Complex-based or magnitude-based fitting with noise floor correction

Vendor-Specific Implementations:

Vendor Product Name Key Features
Siemens Healthineers LiverLab Comprehensive liver package including PDFF, T2*, T1 mapping
Philips Healthcare mDIXON Quant 6-echo technique with automated fat/water separation
GE Healthcare IDEAL IQ Iterative decomposition with echo asymmetry
Canon Medical Fat Fraction Quantification Multi-echo gradient-echo with advanced reconstruction

All of these implementations, when properly executed, produce equivalent PDFF values, enabling cross-vendor comparisons.

4.4 Interpretation and Cutoffs

PDFF Thresholds for Steatosis Grading

The relationship between PDFF and histological steatosis grade is predominantly linear. Mózes et al. (2023) established the following optimal thresholds at 90% specificity:

Steatosis Grade Histological Definition PDFF Threshold
S0 (Normal) <5% hepatocytes <5.0-5.7%
≥S1 (Mild) 5-33% hepatocytes ≥5.7%
≥S2 (Moderate) 34-66% hepatocytes ≥15.5%
S3 (Severe) >66% hepatocytes ≥21.4%

It is important to understand that histological steatosis percentage (which counts steatotic hepatocytes) and PDFF (which measures triglyceride concentration) are fundamentally different measurements. At higher fat levels, histological values can be 2-3 times higher than PDFF values (Mózes et al., 2023).

Comparison with CAP (FibroScan)

PDFF substantially outperforms CAP for fat quantification. Imajo et al. (2021) demonstrated:

  • PDFF AUROC: 0.85-0.93 across steatosis grades
  • CAP AUROC: 0.72-0.80 across steatosis grades
  • PDFF had significantly fewer technical failures

In children and adolescents, meta-analyses similarly confirm the superiority of PDFF over CAP for steatosis assessment (Xanthakos et al., 2021).

5. T1 Mapping and cT1 for Inflammation/Fibroinflammation

5.1 What T1 Mapping Measures

T1 mapping quantifies the longitudinal relaxation time of tissue, which reflects the molecular environment of water protons. In the liver, T1 relaxation time is prolonged by:

  • Extracellular fluid accumulation (edema, inflammation)
  • Fibrosis and collagen deposition
  • Necroinflammatory activity

This makes T1 mapping a composite biomarker of fibroinflammation—the combination of fibrosis and inflammatory activity that characterizes progressive liver disease (Banerjee et al., 2014).

Iron-Corrected T1 (cT1)

Native T1 measurements are confounded by hepatic iron, which shortens T1 relaxation time and can mask underlying disease. Iron-corrected T1 (cT1) was developed by Perspectum (Oxford, UK) to remove this confounding effect by incorporating T2* measurements into the T1 calculation (Pavlides et al., 2016).

cT1 is calculated using a proprietary algorithm that has been validated across multiple MRI platforms (Siemens, GE, Philips at both 1.5T and 3T), ensuring reproducibility for longitudinal monitoring.

T1 mapping measures how quickly the magnetic signal in your liver returns to normal after the MRI machine briefly disturbs it. When a liver is inflamed or scarred, this process takes longer—the T1 time increases. Think of it like how a sponge full of water takes longer to return to its original shape than a dry sponge. However, there’s a complication: if your liver has extra iron in it, it can make the T1 time look shorter than it really is, which could hide signs of disease. The “corrected T1” or cT1 measurement adjusts for any iron in your liver, giving a more accurate picture of inflammation and scarring. This is particularly useful because it can detect disease activity before significant scarring has occurred.

5.2 Applications of cT1

Detecting Early Disease Activity

cT1 can identify liver disease activity before significant fibrosis has developed, potentially enabling earlier intervention. Studies have shown that cT1 can distinguish simple steatosis (MASL) from steatohepatitis (MASH), making it valuable for identifying patients at risk of disease progression (Dennis et al., 2022).

Diagnostic Thresholds:

cT1 Value Interpretation
<800 ms Normal
800-874 ms Elevated disease activity
≥875 ms High risk of advanced liver disease or “at-risk” MASH

Drug Development Trials

cT1 is increasingly used in MASH clinical trials as a non-invasive endpoint for monitoring treatment response. A reduction of ≥80 ms in cT1 has been demonstrated to identify patients who achieve histological resolution of steatohepatitis without worsening fibrosis (Harrison et al., 2024; Perspectum, 2024).

Multiparametric MRI: LiverMultiScan

LiverMultiScan (Perspectum Ltd, UK) is an FDA-cleared, CE-marked platform that provides standardized measurements of:

  • cT1 (fibroinflammation)
  • PDFF (steatosis)
  • T2*/Iron concentration

This multiparametric approach enables comprehensive liver characterization in a single examination. Studies have shown that the combination of cT1 and PDFF outperforms other non-invasive tests for identifying NASH with significant fibrosis (Imajo et al., 2021).

5.3 Limitations of T1 Mapping

Variability Between Vendors

Native T1 mapping values vary significantly between different MRI sequences and vendors, limiting cross-platform comparisons. cT1 addresses this through standardization, but the proprietary nature means it is only available through the LiverMultiScan service.

Influenced by Iron Unless Corrected

Native T1 alone is unreliable in patients with iron overload. The cT1 correction mitigates this but may have reduced accuracy at extreme iron concentrations.

Composite Nature

Because cT1 reflects both inflammation and fibrosis, it cannot distinguish between these components. This limits its utility as a pure fibrosis marker but makes it valuable for assessing overall disease activity.

6. Iron Quantification — R2/T2

6.1 Why Iron Matters

Hepatic iron overload is more common in MASLD than previously recognized and has important clinical implications:

Prevalence in MASLD

Dysmetabolic iron overload syndrome (DIOS) affects 20-40% of patients with MASLD, characterized by mild-to-moderate hepatic iron accumulation in the setting of metabolic syndrome. This is distinct from hereditary hemochromatosis but can similarly contribute to liver injury (Dongiovanni et al., 2011).

Impact on Fibrosis Progression

Elevated hepatic iron accelerates oxidative stress and may promote fibrogenesis. Studies suggest that iron overload is an independent predictor of advanced fibrosis in MASLD (Nelson et al., 2011).

Impact on MRE Interpretation

Severe iron overload can compromise MRE measurements by reducing signal intensity. When liver iron concentration exceeds 3-4 mg/g dry weight, MRE reliability decreases, and alternative fibrosis assessment may be needed.

6.2 MRI Techniques for Iron Quantification

MRI exploits the paramagnetic properties of iron to quantify liver iron concentration (LIC). Iron causes accelerated decay of the MRI signal, shortening both T2 and T2* relaxation times (Wood et al., 2005).

R2* Mapping

R2* (the reciprocal of T2, expressed in s⁻¹) is the most widely used technique for clinical iron quantification. The 2023 consensus guidelines from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) and Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) recommend confounder-corrected R2-based LIC as the preferred method with the strongest level of evidence (Reeder et al., 2023).

Multi-echo gradient-echo sequences acquire images at multiple echo times, and the rate of signal decay is quantified by fitting an exponential decay model. Modern implementations also correct for confounders including:

  • Fat signal (which decays at a different rate)
  • Noise floor effects at very short T2*
  • Background magnetic field inhomogeneities

Vendor Implementations:

Vendor Product Features
GE Healthcare IDEAL IQ Simultaneous R2* and PDFF mapping
Siemens LiverLab R2* Multi-echo with T2* correction
Philips mDIXON Quant R2* Combined fat-water-iron separation

R2 Relaxometry (FerriScan)

R2-based methods using spin-echo sequences (rather than gradient-echo) are also validated for LIC measurement. The FerriScan service (Resonance Health, Australia) uses a standardized R2 measurement protocol with biopsy-derived calibration. While accurate, it requires proprietary analysis and has a narrower dynamic range than R2* methods.

Signal Intensity Ratio (SIR) Methods

Older techniques compare liver signal intensity to a reference organ (typically spleen or muscle) at different echo times. The Gandon method and similar SIR approaches are free to use but have a ceiling effect that limits quantification of severe iron overload (>350 μmol/g or ~20 mg/g) (Gandon et al., 2004).

6.3 Clinical Thresholds

Based on established literature and the ESGAR-SAR guidelines (Reeder et al., 2023):

Iron Overload Severity LIC (mg/g dry weight) Clinical Implications
Normal <1.8 No intervention needed
Mild 1.8-3.2 Monitor, assess cause
Moderate 3.2-7.0 Consider treatment, MRE may be affected
Severe 7.0-15.0 Treatment indicated, significant organ risk
Very Severe >15.0 High risk of complications

Distinguishing Hemochromatosis from DIOS

The pattern of iron distribution on MRI can help differentiate causes:

  • Hereditary hemochromatosis: Iron predominantly in hepatocytes (parenchymal pattern), with relative sparing of reticuloendothelial cells. Pancreatic iron deposition common.

  • Transfusional hemosiderosis: Iron in reticuloendothelial system—spleen, bone marrow, and Kupffer cells of the liver.

  • Dysmetabolic iron overload syndrome: Mild-to-moderate hepatic iron, often patchy distribution, associated with metabolic syndrome features.

Concurrent PDFF measurement helps identify DIOS, as these patients typically have concomitant hepatic steatosis.

7. Diffusion-Weighted Imaging (DWI)

7.1 Concept

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) measures the random Brownian motion of water molecules in tissue. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) quantifies this motion—lower ADC values indicate restricted diffusion, which can occur in highly cellular tissues, fibrotic tissue, or areas with architectural distortion (Taouli et al., 2009).

In the liver, DWI is typically acquired using single-shot echo-planar imaging sequences with varying b-values (typically 0, 50-100, and 500-1000 s/mm²). The ADC is calculated by fitting the signal decay across these b-values to an exponential model.

DWI measures how freely water molecules can move around inside your liver. In healthy liver tissue, water molecules bounce around relatively freely. But when the liver becomes inflamed, swollen, or scarred, these water molecules have more obstacles and can’t move as easily—their diffusion is “restricted.” The MRI can detect this difference. It’s somewhat like comparing how freely you can walk through an empty room versus a room packed with furniture. However, while DWI can give us helpful information about liver health, it’s not as precise as MRE or PDFF for specific measurements of fibrosis or fat.

7.2 Use in Liver Disease

Detection of Inflammation, Edema, and Cellular Injury

DWI is sensitive to acute liver injury and inflammation. Studies have shown that ADC values decrease with increasing grades of necroinflammatory activity, though with significant overlap between categories (Taouli et al., 2008).

Fibrosis Assessment

Multiple studies have demonstrated lower ADC values in cirrhotic livers compared to normal livers, likely reflecting increased cellularity, architectural distortion, and reduced perfusion. Sandrasegaran et al. (2009) found that ADC could distinguish cirrhotic (F4) from non-fibrotic (F0) livers with high accuracy (sensitivity 96%, specificity 82% at a cutoff of 1.18 × 10⁻³ mm²/s).

However, DWI performs poorly for detecting earlier stages of fibrosis. The same study found that ADC values could not reliably differentiate F2 or higher fibrosis from lower stages (AUROC 0.66), limiting its clinical utility for treatment decisions that hinge on identifying significant fibrosis.

Intravoxel Incoherent Motion (IVIM)

IVIM analysis uses multiple b-values to separate true molecular diffusion from microcapillary perfusion effects. This approach shows promise for characterizing liver fibrosis and cirrhosis by quantifying both diffusion (D) and perfusion fraction (f), though standardization remains challenging (Le Bihan et al., 2019).

7.3 Limitations

Motion Artifacts

The liver moves with respiration and cardiac pulsation, creating significant challenges for DWI. The left lobe is particularly affected by cardiac motion, often yielding unreliable ADC values. Respiratory-triggered or navigated sequences improve quality but extend scan time.

Lower Reproducibility

ADC measurements show higher variability than MRE or PDFF, both within and between scanners. Lack of standardized acquisition protocols limits cross-study comparisons (Koh et al., 2007).

Cannot Reliably Quantify Fibrosis

Unlike MRE, DWI cannot accurately stage intermediate fibrosis levels. The overlap in ADC values between fibrosis stages makes it unsuitable as a standalone fibrosis biomarker in clinical practice.

Confounding by Steatosis and Iron

Both fat and iron can affect ADC measurements, though the direction and magnitude of these effects remain incompletely characterized.

Clinical Role

Given these limitations, DWI is best viewed as a complementary technique rather than a primary quantitative biomarker. It can be added to routine liver MRI protocols at minimal additional time or cost and may provide supportive information about tissue abnormality, but it should not replace MRE or serum biomarkers for fibrosis staging.

8. Perfusion and Additional Advanced MRI Tools

8.1 Advanced Quantification Methods

Multifrequency MRE

Standard MRE uses a single frequency (typically 60 Hz). Multifrequency MRE acquires data at multiple frequencies (e.g., 40, 60, 80 Hz) and can provide additional mechanical parameters beyond simple stiffness:

  • Damping ratio: Reflects the viscous properties of tissue and may help differentiate inflammation from fibrosis
  • Loss modulus: Quantifies energy dissipation, potentially useful for characterizing disease activity

Preliminary studies suggest these advanced parameters may help identify NASH before significant fibrosis develops, though clinical validation is ongoing (Yin et al., 2017).

3D MRE

Three-dimensional MRE acquisitions provide volumetric stiffness data, enabling assessment of the entire liver and reducing sampling variability. 3D techniques may improve accuracy for detecting heterogeneous disease and assessing longitudinal changes (Dzyubak et al., 2021).

8.2 MR-Based Portal Hypertension Assessment

Portal hypertension is a critical complication of cirrhosis that drives variceal bleeding, ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy. Non-invasive assessment is valuable for risk stratification.

Spleen Stiffness by MRE

Splenic stiffness measured by MRE correlates with hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), the gold standard for portal hypertension assessment. Studies suggest cutoffs of approximately 6-8 kPa for detecting clinically significant portal hypertension (HVPG ≥10 mmHg) (Ronot et al., 2014).

Imaging Signs of Portal Hypertension

Standard MRI can identify:

  • Splenomegaly
  • Portosystemic collateral vessels (coronary vein, paraumbilical vein, splenorenal shunts)
  • Ascites
  • Varices

These qualitative features complement quantitative stiffness measurements for comprehensive portal hypertension assessment.

8.3 Multiparametric MRI Platforms

Several integrated platforms provide comprehensive liver assessment:

Perspectum LiverMultiScan

As discussed earlier, this FDA-cleared platform provides standardized cT1, PDFF, and iron quantification. Its primary advantages are rigorous standardization across scanner platforms and growing validation in clinical trials.

Siemens LiverLab

An integrated liver imaging package including:

  • PDFF quantification
  • R2* iron mapping
  • T1 mapping
  • Conventional liver imaging sequences

GE MR Touch

GE’s elastography solution combines:

  • 2D and 3D MRE capabilities
  • Integration with IDEAL IQ for fat and iron
  • Automated analysis tools

Philips MRE

Philips offers MRE solutions integrated with their mDIXON platform for combined fat, iron, and stiffness assessment.

The choice of platform often depends on institutional preference, existing scanner infrastructure, and specific clinical needs.

9. MRI Vendor Ecosystem

9.1 Companies Offering MRE

Company MRE Product Key Features
GE Healthcare MR Touch Pneumatic driver system, 2D/3D options, widely validated
Siemens Healthineers MRE Package Integrated with LiverLab, gradient-echo and EPI options
Philips Healthcare MRE Compatible with Ingenia and other platforms
Canon Medical MRE (newer systems) Expanding elastography capabilities
Resoundant/Mayo Clinic MRE Driver and Software Original technology developers, gold-standard validation

9.2 Companies Offering PDFF and Quantitative Methods

Company Product Capabilities
GE Healthcare IDEAL IQ PDFF, R2*, simultaneous fat-water-iron separation
Siemens Healthineers LiverLab PDFF, R2*, T1 mapping, comprehensive liver package
Philips Healthcare mDIXON Quant PDFF, R2*, multi-point Dixon technique
Canon Medical Fat Fraction PDFF quantification sequences

9.3 Multiparametric MRI Software Companies

Company Product Description
Perspectum (UK) LiverMultiScan cT1, PDFF, iron; FDA-cleared, standardized across platforms
Resoundant/Mayo Clinic (USA) MRE Analysis Software Original MRE technology, research and clinical applications
Third-party vendors Various Regional availability varies

9.4 Global MRI Manufacturers

The established major MRI manufacturers dominate North America, Europe, Japan, Australia, and large urban centers in developing countries:

  • Siemens Healthineers (Germany)
  • Philips Healthcare (Netherlands)
  • GE Healthcare (USA)
  • Canon Medical Systems (Japan)
  • Fujifilm (Japan) — expanding MRI portfolio

Emerging Manufacturers:

United Imaging Healthcare (UIH) is one of the fastest-growing MRI manufacturers globally, with competitive systems at lower price points. Their 3.0T and 1.5T systems are increasingly deployed in Asia and expanding to other markets.

Hyperfine offers point-of-care, low-field portable MRI systems that may democratize access to MRI in resource-limited settings, though current capabilities for quantitative liver imaging are limited.

10. Comparison of Advanced MRI Techniques

Feature PDFF MRE T1 Mapping/cT1 R2/T2 DWI
Measures Fat Stiffness Fibroinflammation Iron Water diffusion
Primary Target Steatosis Fibrosis Disease activity Iron overload Inflammation/edema
Accuracy Excellent Excellent High for activity High for iron Moderate
AUROC (main target) 0.91-0.98 0.88-0.94 0.80-0.85 (NASH) 0.95+ (iron) 0.54-0.82
Reproducibility Excellent Excellent Good (cT1) Good Moderate
Technical Failure Rate Very low (<1%) Low (4-6%) Low Very low Moderate
Affected by Obesity No No* No No Minimal
Affected by Iron No Yes (severe) Yes (corrected in cT1) N/A Unknown
Additional Hardware None Driver system None None None
Cost Low Moderate-High Moderate Low Low
Best Application All MASLD Staging & monitoring Clinical trials, disease activity Iron disorders Exploratory
Regulatory Status Widely accepted FDA-cleared cT1: FDA-cleared Established Research tool

*As long as patient fits in scanner bore

11. Clinical Use Cases

Baseline Liver Assessment in MASLD

For patients with suspected or confirmed MASLD, comprehensive MRI can provide:

  1. PDFF to quantify steatosis severity
  2. MRE to stage fibrosis
  3. Iron quantification to identify concomitant iron overload
  4. cT1 (if available) to assess disease activity

This multiparametric approach enables complete characterization in a single visit.

Monitoring Therapy Response

Weight Loss and Lifestyle Interventions:

  • PDFF is the most sensitive marker for tracking fat reduction
  • MRE can demonstrate stiffness reduction with significant weight loss
  • Studies show 10% body weight loss achieves meaningful PDFF reduction in most patients

Pharmacological Trials:

  • PDFF serves as primary endpoint for anti-steatotic effects
  • MRE measures fibrosis regression
  • cT1 tracks changes in disease activity, with 80 ms reduction indicating histological response

Iron Overload Detection

In patients with elevated ferritin or suspected iron overload:

  • R2/T2 quantification provides accurate LIC measurement
  • Pattern assessment (hepatocyte vs. reticuloendothelial) suggests etiology
  • Repeat imaging monitors response to phlebotomy or chelation therapy

Portal Hypertension Risk Stratification

For patients with cirrhosis:

  • Liver stiffness >5 kPa suggests advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis
  • Spleen stiffness by MRE correlates with portal pressure
  • MRI identifies collateral vessels and varices

Pre- and Post-Treatment Evaluation for Clinical Trials

Modern MASH clinical trials routinely incorporate:

  • Baseline PDFF and MRE for enrollment criteria
  • Serial PDFF measurements every 12-24 weeks
  • End-of-treatment MRE to assess fibrosis improvement
  • Histological endpoints remain standard but are supplemented by imaging biomarkers

12. Limitations of MRI in Liver Disease

Cost

MRI examinations cost substantially more than ultrasound-based alternatives:

  • VCTE: $100-200
  • MRI with PDFF/MRE: $500-2000+ depending on region

This limits accessibility in many healthcare systems and may not be cost-effective for population screening.

Limited Availability

Advanced liver MRI capabilities (particularly MRE) are concentrated in academic centers and large healthcare systems. Many community hospitals and developing countries lack the necessary hardware and expertise.

Contraindications

Standard MRI contraindications may exclude some patients:

  • Certain pacemakers and implantable devices (though many modern devices are MRI-conditional)
  • Metallic implants in critical locations
  • Severe claustrophobia (may require sedation)
  • Patients too large to fit in the scanner bore (typically >400-500 lbs / >180-230 kg depending on scanner)

Motion Artifact Sensitivity

Liver imaging requires patient cooperation for breath-holding. Motion artifacts can degrade image quality and compromise quantitative measurements, particularly in: - Patients with respiratory disease - Elderly or debilitated patients - Children requiring sedation

Need for Trained Staff

Accurate liver MRI requires: - Specialized pulse sequences properly configured - Trained technologists for optimal acquisition - Experienced radiologists for interpretation - Quality assurance programs for quantitative measurements

Acute Inflammation Confounders

MRE and cT1 can be falsely elevated by acute hepatitis or inflammation, potentially overestimating fibrosis. The 2023 individual patient data meta-analysis by Liang et al. confirmed that elevated inflammatory activity and GGT levels may lead to overestimation of early fibrosis stages.

13. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1. Is MRE the most accurate test for fibrosis?

Yes — Multiple meta-analyses confirm that MRE outperforms ultrasound-based elastography (VCTE, pSWE, 2D-SWE) for detecting and staging liver fibrosis, particularly for significant (≥F2) and advanced (≥F3) fibrosis. The advantage is most pronounced in obese patients, where VCTE failure rates increase substantially while MRE maintains its accuracy (Singh et al., 2015; Selvaraj et al., 2021).

Q2. Is MRI PDFF better than CAP for measuring fat?

Absolutely. PDFF provides far more accurate and reproducible fat quantification than CAP. PDFF demonstrates excellent correlation with histology (r > 0.85), minimal bias across scanner platforms, and sensitivity to detect 1-2% changes in fat content. CAP has substantially greater variability, is affected by obesity, and cannot reliably distinguish moderate from severe steatosis (Yokoo et al., 2018; Imajo et al., 2021).

Q3. Can MRI fibrosis markers decrease with weight loss or treatment?

Yes — Both MRE stiffness and cT1 values decrease with genuine histologic improvement. Studies demonstrate: - 10% body weight loss achieves MRE reduction in most patients with MASLD - Effective pharmacological therapy (e.g., semaglutide) reduces both PDFF and MRE - cT1 reduction of ≥80 ms identifies patients achieving NASH resolution

However, correlation is not perfect—some patients with histological improvement may not show proportionate imaging changes, and vice versa (Loomba et al., 2020).

Q4. Is MRI safe for repeated yearly scans?

Yes — MRI uses no ionizing radiation and has no known cumulative harmful effects. It is safe for repeated imaging as frequently as clinically indicated. Gadolinium contrast agents (used for some liver protocols but not for PDFF/MRE) have rare safety concerns in patients with severe renal impairment, but quantitative liver biomarkers do not require contrast.

Cost remains the main limiting factor for frequent surveillance imaging.

Q5. Is MRE needed if FibroScan is normal?

Not always. In many patients, a normal FibroScan (VCTE <8 kPa with M probe or <7 kPa with XL probe) adequately rules out advanced fibrosis.

Consider MRE when: - High BMI (>35 kg/m²) where VCTE reliability is reduced - Discordant results between VCTE and serum biomarkers (FIB-4, NFS) - Clinical suspicion of significant fibrosis despite normal VCTE - Research or clinical trial screening requiring high accuracy - Uncertain diagnosis requiring comprehensive liver assessment

Q6. Can MRI detect portal hypertension?

Partially yes. MRI provides several relevant measures: - Spleen stiffness by MRE correlates well with HVPG - Imaging identifies collateral vessels, splenomegaly, and varices - Liver stiffness >5 kPa suggests cirrhosis with likely portal hypertension

However, MRI cannot replace direct HVPG measurement for precise pressure quantification, and the correlations are not perfect.

Q7. Is PDFF affected by inflammation or iron?

No — One of PDFF’s major strengths is its independence from confounders. Modern chemical shift-encoded methods incorporate T2* correction that renders PDFF accurate even in the presence of iron overload. PDFF measurements are also not affected by inflammation, making it reliable across the spectrum of MASLD severity (Yokoo et al., 2018).

Q8. What field strength is best: 1.5T or 3T?

Both are acceptable with appropriate protocols:

  • 1.5T: Often preferred for MRE due to smoother wave propagation; excellent for PDFF and iron quantification
  • 3T: Higher signal provides faster acquisitions and may be preferred for patients who struggle with breath-holding; requires optimized protocols for MRE

Most quantitative measurements, particularly PDFF, have been validated to produce equivalent results at both field strengths (Liang et al., 2023).

14. Summary

MRI has established itself as the most comprehensive non-invasive platform for liver evaluation in MASLD:

Key Takeaways:

  1. MRE is the gold standard for non-invasive fibrosis staging, with excellent diagnostic accuracy (AUROC >0.90 for advanced fibrosis) and low technical failure rates even in obese patients.

  2. PDFF is the reference standard for non-invasive fat quantification, offering true percentage values that are consistent across scanners and sensitive to small changes—ideal for monitoring treatment response.

  3. Multiparametric MRI (combining MRE, PDFF, iron quantification, and potentially cT1) provides comprehensive liver characterization in a single examination, potentially approaching a “virtual biopsy.”

  4. Standardized cutoffs exist for clinical decision-making:

    • MRE: ≥3.14 kPa for significant fibrosis, ≥4.45 kPa for cirrhosis
    • PDFF: ≥5.7% for steatosis
    • cT1: ≥875 ms for high-risk MASH

  5. Limitations include cost, availability, and contraindications. MRI is best reserved for patients who fail or are unsuitable for simpler screening tests, for clinical trials, or when comprehensive assessment is needed.

  6. Future directions include development of biomarkers that can distinguish inflammation from fibrosis, improved accessibility through lower-cost platforms, and further validation as surrogate endpoints for regulatory approval of new therapies.

As the MASLD epidemic continues to grow and new therapeutic options emerge, MRI-based biomarkers will play an increasingly central role in patient selection, monitoring, and endpoint assessment. The goal of replacing invasive liver biopsy with non-invasive, quantitative, and reproducible imaging biomarkers is within reach for many clinical scenarios.

References

  1. Azizi N, Naghibi H, Shakiba M, et al. Evaluation of MRI proton density fat fraction in hepatic steatosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2024;35(4):1794-1807.

    • A comprehensive meta-analysis of 22 studies with 2,844 patients validating PDFF accuracy for steatosis grading, establishing AUC of 0.97 for detecting any steatosis.
    • https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39254718/

  2. Banerjee R, Pavlides M, Tunnicliffe EM, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance for the non-invasive diagnosis of liver disease. J Hepatol. 2014;60(1):69-77.

    • Foundational study establishing the role of multiparametric MRI including T1 mapping in liver disease assessment.

  3. Chen J, Yin M, Talwalkar JA, et al. Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance elastography in patients with severe to morbid obesity. Radiology. 2017;283(3):733-742.

  4. Dennis A, Mouchti S, Gidener T, et al. Precision of MRI-based liver fat and iron quantification using consensus-based standardised imaging. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2022;9(1):e000853.

    • Validation study for multiparametric MRI standardization across platforms.

  5. Dongiovanni P, Fracanzani AL, Fargion S, et al. Iron in fatty liver and in the metabolic syndrome: a promising therapeutic target. J Hepatol. 2011;55(4):920-932.

    • Review of dysmetabolic iron overload syndrome and its clinical implications in MASLD.

  6. Dzyubak B, Venkatesh SK, Yin M, et al. Automated 3D MRE analysis with multimodel data interpretation. Abdom Radiol. 2021;46(3):1106-1117.

    • Description of advanced 3D MRE techniques and automated analysis approaches.

  7. EASL-EASD-EASO. Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). J Hepatol. 2024;81(3):492-542.

  8. Ehman RL. Magnetic resonance elastography: from invention to standard of care. Abdom Radiol. 2022;47(9):3028-3036.

    • Historical perspective on MRE development from the technology’s inventor.

  9. Gandon Y, Olivié D, Guyader D, et al. Non-invasive assessment of hepatic iron stores by MRI. Lancet. 2004;363(9406):357-362.

    • Foundational paper on signal intensity ratio methods for iron quantification.

  10. Gu J, Liu S, Du S, et al. Diagnostic value of MRI-PDFF for hepatic steatosis in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(7):3564-3573.

    • Meta-analysis establishing PDFF diagnostic accuracy for steatosis staging.

  11. Harrison SA, Bedossa P, Guy CD, et al. A phase 3, randomized, controlled trial of resmetirom in NASH with liver fibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2024;390(6):497-509.

    • Pivotal trial supporting FDA approval of resmetirom, incorporating MRI biomarkers.

  12. Hernando D, Levin YS, Sirlin CB, Reeder SB. Quantification of liver iron with MRI: state of the art and remaining challenges. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;40(5):1003-1021.

  13. Hoodeshenas S, Yin M, Venkatesh SK. Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: current update. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;27(5):319-333.

  14. Imajo K, Kessoku T, Honda Y, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging more accurately classifies steatosis and fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease than transient elastography. Gastroenterology. 2016;150(3):626-637.e7.

    • Head-to-head comparison demonstrating MRI superiority over VCTE for NAFLD assessment.

  15. Imajo K, Honda Y, Kobayashi T, et al. Direct comparison of US and MR elastography for staging liver fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;20(4):908-917.e8.

    • Study comparing multiple elastography techniques in NASH, finding MRI-based methods superior.

  16. Koh DM, Collins DJ. Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(6):1622-1635.

    • Review of DWI technical considerations and variability issues.

  17. Le Bihan D, Ichikawa S, Motosugi U. Diffusion and intravoxel incoherent motion MRI in the liver. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2019;18(4):249-258.

    • Advanced DWI techniques including IVIM for liver assessment.

  18. Liang JX, Ampuero J, Niu H, et al. An individual patient data meta-analysis to determine cut-offs for and confounders of NAFLD-fibrosis staging with magnetic resonance elastography. J Hepatol. 2023;79(3):592-604.

  19. Liang Y, Li D. Magnetic resonance elastography in staging liver fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a pooled analysis of the diagnostic accuracy. BMC Gastroenterol. 2020;20(1):89.

  20. Loomba R, Neuschwander-Tetri BA, Sanyal A, et al. Multicenter validation of association between decline in MRI-PDFF and histologic response in NASH. Hepatology. 2020;72(4):1219-1229.

    • Validation of PDFF as a treatment response biomarker in NASH trials.

  21. Loomba R, Sanyal AJ, Kowdley KV, et al. Factors associated with histologic response in adult patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(1):88-95.e5.

    • Analysis of factors predicting histological improvement in NASH.

  22. Middleton MS, Heba ER, Hooker CA, et al. Agreement between magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction measurements and pathologist-assigned steatosis grades of liver biopsies from adults with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Gastroenterology. 2017;153(3):753-761.

    • Validation of PDFF against histological steatosis grading in NASH.

  23. Mózes FE, Lee JA, Selvaraj EA, et al. Marked difference in liver fat measured by histology vs. magnetic resonance-proton density fat fraction: A meta-analysis. JHEP Rep. 2023;5(12):100904.

  24. Nelson JE, Wilson L, Brunt EM, et al. Relationship between the pattern of hepatic iron deposition and histological severity in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2011;53(2):448-457.

    • Study demonstrating the impact of iron deposition patterns on NAFLD outcomes.

  25. Park CC, Nguyen P, Hernandez C, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography vs transient elastography in detection of fibrosis and noninvasive measurement of steatosis in patients with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(3):598-607.e2.

    • Head-to-head comparison establishing MRE superiority over VCTE in NAFLD.

  26. Pavlides M, Banerjee R, Sellwood J, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predicts clinical outcomes in patients with chronic liver disease. J Hepatol. 2016;64(2):308-315.

    • Foundational study on cT1 as a prognostic biomarker.

  27. Pepin K, Heilman J, Dzyubak B, et al. Liver stiffness using MR elastography has high technical success rate in NAFLD patients with high BMI. Hepatology. 2019;70(S1):1263A.

  28. Reeder SB, Cruite I, Hamilton G, Sirlin CB. Quantitative assessment of liver fat with magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;34(4):729-749.

    • Comprehensive technical review of MRI-based fat quantification methods.

  29. Reeder SB, Sirlin CB. Quantification of liver fat with magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2010;18(3):337-357.

    • Technical foundation for PDFF methodology.

  30. Reeder SB, Yokoo T, Engel G, et al. Quantification of liver iron overload with MRI: Review and guidelines from the ESGAR and SAR. Radiology. 2023;307(1):e221856.

  31. Rinella ME, Lazarus JV, Ratziu V, et al. A multi-society Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature. J Hepatol. 2023;79(6):1542-1556.

    • Consensus paper establishing MASLD terminology.

  32. Ronot M, Lambert S, Elkrief L, et al. Assessment of portal hypertension and high-risk oesophageal varices with liver and spleen three-dimensional multifrequency MR elastography in liver cirrhosis. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(6):1394-1402.

    • Study validating spleen stiffness for portal hypertension assessment.

  33. Sandrasegaran K, Akisik FM, Lin C, et al. Value of diffusion-weighted MRI for assessing liver fibrosis and cirrhosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(6):1556-1560.

  34. Selvaraj EA, Mózes FE, Jayaswal ANA, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of elastography and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with NAFLD: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hepatol. 2021;75(4):770-785.

  35. Singh S, Venkatesh SK, Wang Z, et al. Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance elastography in staging liver fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13(3):440-451.e6.

  36. Sirlin CB, Reeder SB. Magnetic resonance imaging quantification of liver iron. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2010;18(3):359-381.

    • Technical review of MRI iron quantification.

  37. Sterling RK, Duarte-Rojo A, Englesbe M, et al. AASLD practice guidance on imaging-based noninvasive liver disease assessment of hepatic fibrosis and steatosis. Hepatology. 2024.

    • 2024 AASLD guidelines on non-invasive liver imaging.

  38. Stine JG, Munaganuru N, Engstrom Bl, et al. Change in MRI-PDFF and histologic response in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;19(11):2274-2283.e5.

    • Meta-analysis establishing relationship between PDFF changes and histological outcomes.

  39. Taouli B, Chouli M, Martin AJ, et al. Chronic hepatitis: role of diffusion-weighted imaging and diffusion tensor imaging for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis and inflammation. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28(1):89-95.

    • Study evaluating DWI for liver fibrosis and inflammation assessment.

  40. Taouli B, Ehman RL, Reeder SB. Advanced MRI methods for assessment of chronic liver disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(1):14-27.

    • Comprehensive review of advanced liver MRI techniques.

  41. Tsochatzis EA, Newsome PN. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and the interface between primary and secondary care. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;3(7):509-517.

    • Review of NAFLD care pathways including role of non-invasive tests.

  42. Venkatesh SK, Yin M, Ehman RL. Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: technique, analysis, and clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37(3):544-555.

  43. Wilman HR, Kelly M, Garratt S, et al. Characterisation of liver fat in the UK Biobank cohort. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0172921.

    • Large population study of liver fat distribution using PDFF.

  44. Wood JC, Enriquez C, Ghugre N, et al. MRI R2 and R2* mapping accurately estimates hepatic iron concentration in transfusion-dependent thalassemia and sickle cell disease patients. Blood. 2005;106(4):1460-1465.

  45. Xanthakos SA, Lavine JE, Yates KP, et al. Progression of fatty liver disease in children receiving standard of care lifestyle advice. Gastroenterology. 2020;159(5):1731-1751.e10.

    • Pediatric NAFLD study incorporating MRI biomarkers.

  46. Xiao G, Zhu S, Xiao X, et al. Comparison of laboratory tests, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance elastography to detect fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A meta-analysis. Hepatology. 2017;66(5):1486-1501.

    • Meta-analysis comparing multiple non-invasive fibrosis tests in NAFLD.

  47. Yasar TK, Wagner M, Bane O, et al. Intersite and intervendor agreement of liver stiffness measurements with MRE. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2022;56(5):1354-1363.

  48. Yin M, Glaser KJ, Talwalkar JA, et al. Hepatic MR elastography: clinical performance in a series of 1377 consecutive examinations. Radiology. 2016;278(1):114-124.

    • Large clinical series demonstrating MRE reliability and failure rates.

  49. Yin M, Talwalkar JA, Glaser KJ, et al. Dynamic postprandial hepatic stiffness augmentation assessed with MR elastography in patients with chronic liver disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(1):64-70.

    • Study of physiological factors affecting liver stiffness measurements.

  50. Yokoo T, Serai SD, Pirasteh A, et al. Linearity, bias, and precision of hepatic proton density fat fraction measurements by using MR imaging: a meta-analysis. Radiology. 2018;286(2):486-498.

This chapter provides an educational overview of MRI-based liver assessment. Clinical decisions should be made in consultation with healthcare providers familiar with the individual patient’s circumstances and in accordance with current clinical guidelines.