Basic Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2024.
World J Hepatol. Nov 27, 2024; 16(11): 1290-1305
Published online Nov 27, 2024. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v16.i11.1290
Table 1 Summary characteristics of different non-invasive methods[31-36]
Methods


Advantages
Flaws
Patients (n)
AUROC
Sensitivity (%)
Specificity (%)
Imaging modalitiesQuantitative ultrasound biomarkersUltrasound attenuation coefficient[31]Low cost and wide availability; High sensitivity and specificity in gradingThe diagnostic performance is affected by the presence of fibrosis.125 (Excluding liver fibrosis)S0 vs S1, S2, S30.95182.195.5
S0, S1 vs S2, S30.98794.393.9
S0, S1, S2 vs S30.93194.185.5
Ultrasound-derived fat fraction[32]Low cost and wide availability; Real-time data collectionHigh interobserver variability46S0 vs S1, S2, S30.95090.094.0
S0, S1 vs S2, S30.980
CTContrast-enhanced CT[33]Common in clinical practice; Quantify liver fat without additional radiation exposureExposes patients to ionizing radiation1204    Steatosis≥ 5%0.66934.094.2
    Steatosis≥ 10%0.854
Steatosis ≥ 15%0.96275.995.7
Non-contrast dual-energy CT[34]Reliable for detection of moderate steatosisInfluenced by varying contrast bolus and scan timing, cardiac output128Right lobe0.83457.094.0
Left lobe0.87268.090.0
MR-PDFF[35]It is used as a reference for testing other clinical or biochemical markersExpensive; availability-limited; unable to assess liver inflammation, ballooning77S0 vs S1, S2, S30.98997100
S0, S1 vs S2, S30.8256190
S0, S1, S2 vs S30.8936891
Serum biomarkersLaboratory parameter-based modelNAFLD bridge score[36]Data availability and cost-effectivenessUnable to differentiate NASH from simple steatosis with high sensitivity and specificity422With and without NAFLD0.8809587