Zhang B, Ding F, Chen T, Xia LH, Qian J, Lv GY. Ultrasound hepatic/renal ratio and hepatic attenuation rate for quantifying liver fat content. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20(47): 17985-17992 [PMID: 25548498 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i47.17985]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Guo-Yi Lv, MD, Deputy Chief of Physicians, Department of Radiology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Tongji Medical College, Pu Ai Hospital, No. 473 Hanzheng Road, Qiaokou District, Wuhan 430030, Hubei Province, China. laodongdong999@sina.com
Research Domain of This Article
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Article-Type of This Article
Clinical Trials Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Table 2 Quantitative ultrasound index estimation model for liver fat content
Model
Regression coefficients ± SD
P value
Corrective R2
RMSE
Ultrasound hepatic/renal ratio
Hepatic echo-intensity attenuation rate
Constant
Liver fat content
1
72.012 ± 3.445
-
-34.704 ± 2.302
-34.704 ± 2.302
0.000
79.0%
6.12
2
61.519 ± 4.311
167.701 ± 42.115
-26.736 ± 3.012
-26.736 ± 3.012
0.000
80.1%
5.33
Table 3 Correlation analysis between metabolic indices and liver fat content determined by the quantitative ultrasound model
AST
ALT
TC
TG
HDL-C
LDL-C
r
0.301
0.411
0.015
0.512
-0.331
-0.079
P
0.001
0.000
0.721
0.000
0.001
0.332
Table 4 Comparison of fatty liver diagnosis by the ultrasound quantitative model, the ultrasound hepatic/renal ratio, the hepatic echo-intensity attenuation rate, and conventional ultrasound