ArticleJournal of gastroenterology2024
iATT liver fat quantification for steatosis grading by referring to MRI proton density fat fraction: a multicenter study.
Article in Journal of gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) 2026.Journal of gastroenterology · 2026Guideline
- Steatosis index: a novel multiparametric ultrasound approach for accurate liver steatosis quantification and grading.Journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Current Trends and Perspectives on Obesity and Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatohepatitis in East Asia.Journal of obesity & metabolic syndrome · 2026Review
- Reliability of liver stiffness measurements using shear wave elastography: impact of skin-to-capsule distance and subcutaneous tissue structure.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2026Article
- Optimization of measurements with an ultrasound attenuation coefficient algorithm for quantifying liver fat.European radiology · 2026Article
- Ultrasound Attenuation Coefficient as a Biomarker of Hepatic Steatosis: State of the Art and Software Evaluation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The Cardiovascular Risk Paradox in Normal-Weight Steatotic Liver Disease Beyond Body Mass Index-Based Detection.Gastro hep advances · 2026Article
- The liver-gut-brain axis in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: bidirectional communication, clinical implications, and future perspectives.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Development of a Neural Network to Detect Hepatic Steatosis in Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease.Gastro hep advances · 2026Article
- Outcome-Specific Cardiovascular and Hypertensive Risk Profiles in Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease: Insights From a Competing Risk Cohort Analysis.Gastro hep advances · 2026Article
- Multiparametric Quantitative Ultrasound for Hepatic Steatosis: Comparison with CAP and Robustness Across Breathing States.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Is hepatosteatosis overlooked in ultrasound relying only on B-mode? The impact of incorporating the attenuation coefficient into the standard abdominal ultrasound protocol.Polish journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Assessing Quality of Ultrasound Attenuation Coefficient Results for Liver Fat Quantification.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeveral preliminary reports have suggested the utility of ultrasound attenuation coefficient measurements based on B-mode ultrasound, such as iATT, for diagnosing steatotic liver disease. Nonetheless, evidence supporting such utility is lacking. This prospective study aimed to investigate whether iATT is highly concordant with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) and could well distinguish between steatosis grades.
methodsA cohort of 846 individuals underwent both iATT and MRI-PDFF assessments. Steatosis grade was defined as grade 0 with MRI-PDFF < 5.2%, grade 1 with 5.2% MRI-PDFF < 11.3%, grade 2 with 11.3% MRI-PDFF < 17.1%, and grade 3 with MRI-PDFF of 17.1%. The reproducibility of iATT and MRI-PDFF was evaluated using the Bland-Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients, whereas the diagnostic performance of each steatosis grade was examined using receiver operating characteristic analysis.
resultsThe Bland-Altman analysis indicated excellent reproducibility with minimal fixed bias between iATT and MRI-PDFF. The area under the curve for distinguishing steatosis grades 1, 2, and 3 were 0.887, 0.882, and 0.867, respectively. A skin-to-capsula distance of ≥ 25 mm was identified as the only significant factor causing the discrepancy. No interaction between MRI-logPDFF and MRE-LSM on iATT values was observed.
conclusionsCompared to MRI-PDFF, iATT showed excellent diagnostic accuracy in grading steatosis. iATT could be used as a diagnostic tool instead of MRI in clinical practice and trials. Trial registration This study was registered in the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000047411).
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.