ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Comparing ultrasound-derived fat fraction and MRI-PDFF for quantifying hepatic steatosis: a real-world prospective study.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Natural history of focal nodular hyperplasia on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: a multicenter cohort study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance of ultrasound-derived fat fraction for detecting hepatic steatosis in patients with tumor-related liver disease.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Quantitative liver ultrasound: current status and challenges.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Article
- Impact of acquisition geometry on ultrasound-derived fat fraction measurements: implications for standardized acquisition and measurement interchangeability.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance of ultrasound-derived fat fraction for grading hepatic steatosis in patients with chronic liver diseases: a multicenter study.European radiology · 2026Article
- MRI-derived visceral adipose tissue quantification enhances stratification of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis severity and fibrosis in obesity.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- MRI in MASLD: technical foundations and guideline-based applications.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2026Review
- Ultrasound-derived fat fraction and automated point shear-wave elastography in diagnosing intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy and preeclampsia.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Correlative study of hepatic venous diameter/liver volume index and extent of hepatic steatosis in living related liver donors: a retrospective observational study.Clinical transplantation and research · 2026Article
- Non-invasive imaging diagnostic techniques in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: a roadmap for clinicians.Hormones (Athens, Greece) · 2026Review
- Fraction Conversion Models Based on Ultrasound Attenuation Coefficient for Assessing Liver Steatosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Advances in quantitative ultrasound for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease diagnosis.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Integrated model based on ultrasound attenuation and metabolic biomarkers for noninvasive assessment of hepatic fat fraction categories in MASLD: a QCT-referenced study.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Association of ultrasound-derived fat fraction with carotid intima-media thickness and carotid plaque in patients with type 2 diabetes: an exploratory cross-sectional study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- 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
- Predictive value of TyG-BMI, CTI, and SII in identifying metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Quantitative ultrasound-derived fat fraction for identifying pediatric patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: a prospective study.Pediatric radiology · 2025Article
- Influence variables of ultrasound-derived fat fraction in liver fat content measurement: preprandial and postprandial states.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the agreement between ultrasound-derived fat fraction (UDFF) with magnetic resonance proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) for quantification of hepatic steatosis and verify its reliability and diagnostic performance by comparing with MRI-PDFF as the reference standard.
methodsThis prospective study included a primary analysis of 191 patients who underwent MRI-PDFF and UDFF from February 2023 to February 2024. MRI-PDFF were derived from three liver segment measurements with calculation of an overall median PDFF. UDFF was performed by two different sonographers for each of the six measurements, and the median was taken. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis were used to assess agreement. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of UDFF in detecting different degrees of hepatic steatosis.
resultsA total of 176 participants were enrolled in the final cohort of this study (median age, 36.0 years; 82 men, 94 women). The median MRI-PDFF value was 11.3% (interquartile range (IQR) 7.5-18.9); 84.7% patients had a median MRI-PDFF value ≥ 6.4%. The median UDFF measured by different sonographers were 9.5% (IQR: 5.0-18.0) and 9.0% (IQR: 5.0-18.0), respectively. The interobserver agreement of UDFF measurement was excellent agreement (ICC = 0.951 [95% CI: 0.934-0.964], p < 0.001). UDFF was positively strongly correlated with MRI-PDFF with ICC of 0.899 (95% CI: 0.852-0.930). The Bland-Altman analysis showed high agreement between UDFF and MRI-PDFF measurements, with a mean bias of 1.7% (95% LOA, -8.7 to 12.2%). The optimal UDFF cutoff values were 5.5%, 15.5% and 17.5% for detecting MRI-PDFF at historic thresholds of 6.4%, 17.4%, and 22.1%, with AUC of 0.851, 0.952, and 0.948, respectively. The sensitivity was 79.2%, 87.5%, 88.9%, and specificity was 81.5%, 90.6%, 90.0%, respectively.
conclusionsUDFF is a reliable and accurate method for quantification and classification of hepatic steatosis, with strong agreement to MRI-PDFF. The UDFF cutoff values of 5.5%, 15.5%, and 17.5% provide high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of mild, moderate, and severe hepatic steatosis, respectively. KEY POINTS: Question Is ultrasound-derived fat fraction (UDFF) reliable for the quantitative detection of hepatic steatosis compared to MRI proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF)? Findings UDFF cutoff values of 5.5%, 15.5%, and 17.5% provided high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of mild, moderate, and severe hepatic steatosis, respectively. Clinical relevance UDFF is a reliable and accurate method for quantification and classification of hepatic steatosis, with strong agreement to MRI-PDFF and high reproducibility of liver fat content by different sonographers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39414658What 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.