Copyright
©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Gastroenterol. Dec 21, 2014; 20(47): 17985-17992
Published online Dec 21, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i47.17985
Published online Dec 21, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i47.17985
Table 1 General data comparison of the two groups
Classification | Non-fatty liver group (n = 41) | Fatty liver group (n = 129) | P |
Age (yr) | 54.32 ± 6.24 | 53.72 ± 5.81 | 0.182 |
Gender (male/female) | 20/21 | 67/62 | 0.613 |
BMI (kg/m2) | 24.11± 0.73 | 27.38 ± 0.64 | 0.005 |
Waist/hip ratio | 0.86 ± 0.02 | 0.93 ± 0.01 | 0.001 |
ALT (IU/L) | 18 (11-22) | 35 (18-41) | 0.001 |
AST (IU/L) | 18 (14-25) | 24 (18-39) | 0.001 |
TC (mmol/L) | 1.03 (0.75-1.22) | 1.72 (1.35-2.43) | 0.000 |
TG (mmol/L) | 4.87 ± 0.27 | 5.02 ± 0.18 | 0.532 |
HDL-C (mmol/L) | 1.42 ± 0.05 | 1.18 ± 0.04 | 0.003 |
LDL-C (mmol/L) | 3.01 ± 0.23 | 2.98 ± 0.15 | 0.672 |
Ultrasound hepatic/renal ratio | 0.55 ± 0.01 | 0.80 ± 0.04 | 0.000 |
Hepatic echo-intensity attenuation rate (cm-1·MHz-1) | -0.0193 ± 0.0031 | 0.0027 ± 0.0016 | 0.000 |
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
Group | 1H-MRS diagnosis of fatty liver | |||
Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Positive predictive value (%) | Negative predictive value (%) | |
All subjects | ||||
Quantitative ultrasound model | 94.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 82.6 |
Conventional ultrasound | 83.7 | 70.7 | 90.0 | 58.0 |
Ultrasound hepatic/renal ratio | 88.3 | 84.5 | 94.2 | 72.4 |
Hepatic echo-intensity attenuation rate | 86.7 | 78.7 | 92.0 | 67.0 |
Subjects with fatty content < 15% (1H-MRS) | ||||
Quantitative ultrasound model | 81.4 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 84.5 |
Conventional ultrasound | 47.6 | 70.3 | 73.1 | 62.7 |
Ultrasound hepatic/renal ratio | 67.5 | 81.7 | 87.6 | 70.3 |
Hepatic echo-intensity attenuation rate | 55.6 | 74.3 | 82.1 | 68.7 |
- Citation: 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
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v20/i47/17985.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i47.17985