ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Quantitative ultrasound-derived fat fraction for hepatic steatosis in MASLD using liver biopsy as the reference standard: a dual-center study.
Article in European radiology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesNon-invasive steatosis grading tools are critical for the assessment of Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). This study evaluated the performance of ultrasound-derived fat fraction (UDFF) against histopathology for the grading of hepatic steatosis. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom August 2022 to September 2024, this prospective dual-center study enrolled 418 participants (376 from Center 1, 42 from Center 2) with confirmed or suspected MASLD, all of whom underwent UDFF and liver biopsy. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using Spearman correlation, Bland-Altman plots, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses. Optimal UDFF cut-offs for steatosis grades (S0-S3) were derived from the training cohort and refined to clinically practical integers with reference to validation cohort performance. A dual-threshold strategy defining an indeterminate zone (sensitivity ≥ 90% for rule-out; specificity ≥ 90% for rule-in) was implemented.
resultsUDFF showed excellent reproducibility and strong correlations with histopathology (Spearman's ρ = 0.724-0.767, p < 0.001). Bland-Altman analyses revealed minimal bias between UDFF and histopathology (Center 1/2: 1.432%/1.921%). In our biopsy-selected MASLD cohort, the optimal UDFF cut-offs were ≥ 6%, ≥ 15%, and ≥ 21% for mild (S ≥ 1), moderate (S ≥ 2), and severe (S3) steatosis, respectively. In the training cohort, area under the ROC curves (AUROCs) were 0.966, 0.805, and 0.929 for S ≥ 1, S ≥ 2, and S3. These established cut-offs were robustly validated internally and externally (AUROCs: 0.972/0.922 for S ≥ 1; 0.948/0.934 for S ≥ 2; 0.911/0.936 for S3) and reduced indeterminate cases by 2.8-24.6% compared to initial dual thresholds.
conclusionUDFF demonstrated promising performance for steatosis grading in patients with clinically indicated biopsy and might serve as a useful non-invasive tool. KEY POINTS: QuestionCan UDFF provide a reproducible, accurate, and clinically reliable imaging-based assessment of hepatic steatosis grading in MASLD? FindingsUDFF accurately grades hepatic steatosis against histopathology. Optimized cut-offs (≥ 6%/≥ 15%/≥ 21%) reduce indeterminate classifications by up to 24.6%, and high reproducibility enables robust multicenter application. Clinical relevanceUDFF demonstrates promising diagnostic performance for hepatic steatosis with robust reproducibility and optimized thresholds (≥ 6%/15%/21%). However, its utility is limited by the small number of severe cases and lack of inter-observer data, further validation is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42625048What 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.