US Quantification of Liver Fat: Past, Present, and Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fatty liver disease has a high and increasing prevalence worldwide, is associated with adverse cardiovascular events and higher long-term medical costs, and may lead to liver-related morbidity and mortality. There is an urgent need for accurate, reproducible, accessible, and noninvasive techniques appropriate for detecting and quantifying liver fat in the general population and for monitoring treatment response in at-risk patients. CT may play a potential role in opportunistic screening, and MRI proton-density fat fraction provides high accuracy for liver fat quantification; however, these imaging modalities may not be suited for widespread screening and surveillance, given the high global prevalence. US, a safe and widely available modality, is well positioned as a screening and surveillance tool. Although well-established qualitative signs of liver fat perform well in moderate and severe steatosis, these signs are less reliable for grading mild steatosis and are likely unreliable for detecting subtle changes over time. New and emerging quantitative biomarkers of liver fat, such as those based on standardized measurements of attenuation, backscatter, and speed of sound, hold promise. Evolving techniques such as multiparametric modeling, radiofrequency envelope analysis, and artificial intelligence–based tools are also on the horizon. The authors discuss the societal impact of fatty liver disease, summarize the current state of liver fat quantification with CT and MRI, and describe past, currently available, and potential future US-based techniques for evaluating liver fat. For each US-based technique, they describe the concept, measurement method, advantages, and limitations. © RSNA, 2023 Online supplemental material is available for this article. Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".