data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7e1e6/7e1e61f01d233b91960c61442e748a5609c80a7c" alt="Man ultramarathon runner in the mountains he trains at sunset"
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Med.
Sec. Hepatobiliary Diseases
Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1457960
This article is part of the Research Topic Bridging the Gap: Current Clinical Practices for Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease View all 5 articles
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Introduction: Evaluation of the ultrasound attenuation coefficient is widely used in the diagnosis of steatotic liver disease (SLD). US steatometry with real-time attenuation coefficient measurement (ACM) is an imaging tool that can replace and surpass the B-mode and improve the noninvasive diagnosis of SLD.Aim: To evaluate the intra- and interobserver variability of ACM for the assessment of SLD.Material and methods: A single-center cross-sectional study was conducted at the Kyiv City Clinical Endocrinology Center. We examined 52 patients (25 men and 27 women) with a mean age of 53.2±4.73 years. B-mode and ACM were performed on a Soneus P7 US system (Ultrasign, Ukraine). Examinations were performed by 2 radiologists with 28 (expert 1) and 17 (expert 2) years of experience and 4 general practitioners (GPs) without US experience (nonexperts 1-4). The training of 4 GPs on mastering the ACM was only 60 minutes due to US steatophantom. Each doctor performed 5 measurements of the ACM for each patient. The inter- and intraobserver variability of the results was determined by using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI).Results: The overall intraobserver variability after 5 days of examination was as follows: for expert 1 - 0.958 (95% CI 0.938-0.974); for expert 2 - 0.936 (95% CI 0.905-0.980); nonexpert 1 - 0.891 (95% CI 0.843-0.929); nonexpert 2 - 0.915 (95% CI 0.876-0.945); nonexpert 3 - 0.927 (95% CI 0.893-0.953); nonexpert 4 - 0.880 (95% CI 0.827-0.927). Interobserver variability at the final timepoint (day 5) was as follows: between experts 1 and 2, 0.942 (95% CI 0.898-0.967); between nonexperts 1-4 overall, 0.871 (95% CI 0.800-0.921); and overall, 0.922 (95% CI 0.883-0.951).Conclusions: Real-time US steatometry with ACM measurement is an informative, simple method with excellent intra- and interobserver variability and a reproducible method for population assessment for the early diagnosis and staging of SLD. The simplicity of ACM technology allows general practitioners to master the technique within 60 minutes. ACM measurements can be effectively employed by general practitioners (GPs) for population screening, enabling timely identification and management of MASLD.
Keywords: interobserver and intraobserver variability, attenuation coefficient (AC), Steatometry, Steatotic liver disease (SLD), Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease
Received: 01 Jul 2024; Accepted: 28 Feb 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Zhaivoronok, Dynnyk, Livkutnyk, Yerokhovych, Yuzvenko, Serednia, Melnychenko and Kobyliak. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Nazarii Kobyliak, Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, Ukraine
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.