ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Head-to-head comparison of three different US-based quantitative parameters for hepatic steatosis assessment: a prospective study.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasonic radio frequency signals-based hepatorenal index improved the diagnostic performance in steatotic liver disease.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Thermoacoustic Ultrasound Assessment of Liver Steatosis-A Novel Approach for MASLD Diagnosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Fetuin-A: a relevant novel serum biomarker for non-invasive diagnosis of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD): a retrospective case-control study.BMC gastroenterology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of attenuation coefficient (AC), hepato-renal index (HRI) and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) in quantitative assessment of hepatic steatosis by employing histopathology as reference standard.
methodsParticipants with suspected metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) who underwent US-based parameter examinations and liver biopsy were prospectively recruited. The distributions of US parameters across different grades of steatosis were calculated, and diagnostic performance was determined based on the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).
resultsA total of 73 participants were included, with hepatic steatosis grades S0, S1, S2, and S3 distributed as follows: 13, 20, 27, and 13 respectively. The correlation coefficients for CAP, AC, and HRI ranged from 0.67 to 0.74. AC and HRI showed a strong correlation with steatosis grade. The AUC for CAP and AC in diagnosing steatosis ≥ S1 were significantly higher at 0.99 and 0.98 compared to HRI's value. For diagnosing steatosis ≥ S2, the AUC of CAP (AUC: 0.85) was lower than that of AC (AUC: 0.94), and HRI (AUC: 0.94). Similarly for diagnosing steatosis S3, the AUC of CAP (AUC: 0.68) was lower than that of AC (AUC: 0.88), and HRI (AUC: 0.88).
conclusionThe AC and HRI values increased with the progression of hepatic steatosis grade, while CAP increased from S0 to S2 but not from S2 to S3. For mild steatosis diagnosis, CAP and AC showed superior diagnostic performance compared to HRI, while AC and HRI were more advantageous in differentiating moderate and severe steatosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38740581What 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.