ArticleInsights into imaging2024
Inter-platform reproducibility of ultrasound-based fat fraction for evaluating hepatic steatosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative liver ultrasound: current status and challenges.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Article
- Is ultrasonic speed of sound estimation for liver fat quantification affected by measurement depth?Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Non-invasive imaging diagnostic techniques in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: a roadmap for clinicians.Hormones (Athens, Greece) · 2026Review
- Accurate and spatially stable quantification of hepatic steatosis using ultrasound-derived fat fraction in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD): a prospective magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Ultrasound Attenuation Coefficient as a Biomarker of Hepatic Steatosis: State of the Art and Software Evaluation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Comparison of ultrasound-derived fat fraction and hepatorenal index for quantitative detection of hepatic steatosis: a multicenter MRI-PDFF-referenced study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Ultrasound-derived fat fraction for the noninvasive quantification of hepatic steatosis: a prospective multicenter study.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Quantitative Ultrasound for Hepatic Steatosis: A Systematic Review Highlighting the Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasound-Derived Fat Fraction.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Assessment of hepatic steatosis in children with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease using ultrasound derived fat fraction: first large-scale clinical evaluation.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Comparing ultrasound-derived fat fraction and MRI-PDFF for quantifying hepatic steatosis: a real-world prospective study.European radiology · 2025Article
- Fatty pancreas disease in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes patients: a case-control study on relationships with glycemic control and exocrine function.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2025Article
- Construction of a Compound Model to Enhance the Accuracy of Hepatic Fat Fraction Estimation with Quantitative Ultrasound.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the inter-platform reproducibility of ultrasound-based fat fraction examination in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).
methodsPatients suspected of having NAFLD were prospectively enrolled from January 2023. Ultrasound-based fat fraction examinations were performed using two different platforms (ultrasound-derived fat fraction [UDFF] and quantitative ultrasound-derived estimated fat fraction [USFF]) on the same day. The correlation between UDFF and USFF was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman analysis with 95% limits of agreement (LOAs), and the coefficient of variation (CV) were used to assess inter-platform reproducibility.
resultsA total of 41 patients (21 men and 20 women; mean age, 53.9 ± 12.6 years) were analyzed. Moderate correlation was observed between UDFF and USFF (Pearson's r = 0.748; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.572-0.858). On Bland-Altman analysis, the mean difference between UDFF and USFF values was 1.3% with 95% LOAs ranging from -8.0 to 10.6%. The ICC between UDFF and USFF was 0.842 (95% CI: 0.703-0.916), with a CV of 29.9%.
conclusionSubstantial inter-platform variability was observed among different ultrasound-based fat fraction examinations. Therefore, it is not appropriate to use ultrasound-based fat fraction values obtained from different vendors interchangeably. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Considering the substantial inter-platform variability in ultrasound-based fat fraction assessments, caution is imperative when interpreting and comparing fat fraction values obtained from different ultrasound platforms in clinical practice. KEY POINTS: • Inter-platform reproducibility of ultrasound-based fat fraction examinations is important for its clinical application. • Significant variability across different ultrasound-based fat fraction examinations was observed. • Using ultrasound-based fat fraction values from different vendors interchangeably is not advisable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.