Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 22, 2026
A Microscopic 2,3,5-Triphenyltetrazolium Chloride Assay for Accurate and Reliable Analysis of Myocardial Injury
Published on: November 28, 2025
Inter-site validations of the Pixel-Wise method for cardiac T2* analysis in transfusion-dependent Thai thalassemia
Pairash Saiviroonporn1, Vip Viprakasit, Adisak Maneesai
1Department of Radiology, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Objective:
To compare inter-site observer variability of the Pixel- Wise (PW) method for cardiac T2* analysis in thalassemia patients using the mono-exponential with a constant fitting (offset) model and to compare the cross-model variability of the offset model to the mono-exponential (typical) model.
Material And Method:
Eighty-eight cardiac T2* measurements were performed on 72 Thalassemia major patients. Both bright- and black-blood techniques were acquired and analyzed at both the reference (REF) and local (LOC) sites using the PW method by defined region of interest on the whole (at the REF site) and partial (at the LOC site) septum. The offset model was analyzed at the reference site while both the offset and typical models were performed at the local site. The inter-site variability of the T2* values were analyzed by independent observers blinded to the results.
Results:
The T2* values from the REF-offset, LOC-offset and LOC-typical methods were statistically comparable on both scanning techniques. The inter-site variations of the offset model were about 5.2% and 4.4% on the bright- and black-blood techniques, respectively, which was about 1.7% higher than from the intra-site, but was still in a reasonable range compared to the conventional method of around 5.4%. The cross-model comparisons presented with 0.4 ms of bias and variation of about 6.9% and 4.7%, respectively, which is about 1.4% higher than from the intra-site.
Conclusion:
The observer variability on the PW method using the offset or typical model provided equivalent coefficient of variation on both scanning techniques, which was also comparable to the previous reports. The inter-site variability of the offset and cross models was also in a reasonable range, being less than 2% higher than the intra-site with bias of about 0.4 ms.
