Between‐Visit Reproducibility of Shear Wave Viscoelastography in Volunteers and Patients With Metabolic Dysfunction‐Associated Steatotic Liver Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the reproducibility of six ultrasound (US)-determined shear wave (SW) viscoelastography parameters for assessment of mechanical properties of the liver in volunteers and patients with biopsy-proven metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) or metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH). METHODS: This prospective, cross-sectional, institutional review board-approved study included 10 volunteers and 20 patients with MASLD or MASH who underwent liver US elastography twice, at least 2 weeks apart. SW speed (SWS), Young's modulus (E), shear modulus (G), SW attenuation (SWA), SW dispersion (SWD), and viscosity were computed from radiofrequency data recorded on a research US scanner. Linear mixed models were used to consider the sonographer on duty as a confounder. The reproducibility of measurements was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation (CV), reproducibility coefficient (RDC), and Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: The sonographer performing the exam had no impact on viscoelastic parameters (P > .05). ICCs of SWS, E, G, SWA, SWD, and viscosity were, respectively, 0.89 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.79-0.95), 0.81 (95% CI: 0.79-0.95), 0.90 (95% CI: 0.80-0.95), 0.96 (95% CI: 0.93-0.98), 0.78 (95% CI: 0.60-0.89), and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.80-0.95); CVs were 11.9, 23.3, 24.2, 10.1, 29.0, and 32.2%; RDCs were 33.0, 64.5, 66.9, 27.7, 80.3, and 89.2%, and Bland-Altman mean biases and 95% limits of agreement were -0.05 (-0.45, 0.35) m/s, -0.61 (-5.33, 4.10) kPa, -0.25 (-2.06, 1.56) kPa, -0.01 (-0.27, 0.26) Np/m/Hz, -0.09 (-7.09, 6.91) m/s/kHz, and -0.33 (-2.60, 1.94) Pa/s, between the two visits. CONCLUSION: US-determined viscoelastography parameters can be measured with high reproducibility and consistency between two visits 2 weeks apart on the same ultrasound machine.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".