Marked difference in liver fat measured by histology vs. magnetic resonance-proton density fat fraction: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Aims: Pathologists quantify liver steatosis as the fraction of lipid droplet-containing hepatocytes out of all hepatocytes, whereas the magnetic resonance-determined proton density fat fraction (PDFF) reflects the tissue triacylglycerol concentration. We investigated the linearity, agreement, and correspondence thresholds between histological steatosis and PDFF across the full clinical spectrum of liver fat content associated with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Methods: Using individual patient-level measurements, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing histological steatosis with PDFF determined by magnetic resonance spectroscopy or imaging in adults with suspected non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Linearity was assessed by meta-analysis of correlation coefficients and by linear mixed modelling of pooled data, agreement by Bland-Altman analysis, and thresholds by receiver operating characteristic analysis. To explain observed differences between the methods, we used RNA-seq to determine the fraction of hepatocytes in human liver biopsies. Results: histology. Conclusions: Histological steatosis and PDFF have non-perfect linearity and fundamentally different scales of measurement. Liver fat values obtained using these methods may be rendered comparable by conversion equations or threshold values. Impact and implications: Magnetic resonance-proton density fat fraction (PDFF) is increasingly being used to measure liver fat in place of the invasive liver biopsy. Understanding the relationship between PDFF and histological steatosis fraction is important for preventing misjudgement of clinical status or treatment effects in patient care. Our analysis revealed that histological steatosis fraction is often significantly higher than PDFF, and their association varies across the spectrum of fatty liver severity. These findings are particularly important for physicians and clinical researchers, who may use these data to interpret PDFF measurements in the context of histologically evaluated liver fat content.
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 | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".