ArticleClinical and translational gastroenterology2026
Predictors of Discordance Between Controlled Attenuation Parameter and Magnetic Resonance-Proton Density Fat Fraction in Hepatic Steatosis.
Article in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMagnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) is the reference standard for quantifying hepatic steatosis, but the more accessible controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) often yields discordant results, risking misclassification. We aimed to identify clinical factors driving this discordance and develop a risk-based algorithm to guide steatosis assessment.
methodsThis retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted at a single tertiary hospital. We identified 1,821 patients who underwent both CAP and MRI-PDFF within a 90-day interval. Using MRI-PDFF as the reference, we performed multivariable logistic regression to identify predictors for CAP overestimation and underestimation, defined as a ≥2-grade difference.
resultsSignificant discordance (≥2-grade difference) was observed in 387 of 1,821 patients (21.3%), with CAP overestimating in 13.0% and underestimating in 8.3%. After adjustment, overestimation was independently associated with older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.016; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.007-1.024), higher body mass index (aOR, 1.115; 95% CI, 1.082-1.149), and diabetes mellitus (aOR, 1.448; 95% CI, 1.022-2.050). Conversely, underestimation was associated with younger age (aOR, 0.949; 95% CI, 0.935-0.964) and lower body mass index (aOR, 0.946; 95% CI, 0.908-0.985). Predictive models achieved an area under the curve of 0.704 for overestimation and 0.765 for underestimation. DISCUSSION: Overestimation and underestimation of hepatic steatosis by CAP are driven by distinct clinical predictors. Our risk algorithm reliably identifies a "concordant zone" where CAP can be used confidently, while guiding selective MRI-PDFF confirmation for patients at high risk of discordance, thereby optimizing noninvasive assessment strategies.
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.