| Literature DB >> 30634482 |
Monica Ana Paraschiva Purcaru1, Angela Repanovici2, Tiberiu Nedeloiu3.
Abstract
The study was performed at Brasov County Hospital, in the Internal Medicine, Diabetes, Gastroenterology and Cardiology Wards with the collaboration of Transylvania University of Brasov, as a study approved by the Ethical Board of the university. The study aimed at assessing the connection between the anthropometric parameters of abdominal adiposity (measured by means of an original experiment designed to determine the curvature of the thoracic-abdominal adiposity for the patients and processed by help of a mathematical model based upon Bezier curves geometry) and the fat load of the liver (assessed by ultrasound by measuring the diameters of both hepatic lobes) for the patients diagnosed with Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD). The existence of ten types of thoracic-abdominal curves profiles were statistically analyzed in order to evaluate in a simple manner the liver size in NAFLD. The method of diagnosis is based on an easily reproduced experiment, it is original, innovative, non-invasive, and cost-effective. Can be implemented anywhere in the world, there is no need for investment, only for determining the profile of the belly.Entities:
Keywords: Bézier curves; anthropometry; arc length; area; curvature; hepatomegaly; non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; non-invasive methods; ultrasound; waist circumference
Year: 2019 PMID: 30634482 PMCID: PMC6351951 DOI: 10.3390/jcm8010065
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 1Thoracic-abdominal profile in case of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) diagnosis.
Figure 2Thoracic-abdominal profile image acquisition.
Figure 3Mathematical modeling of thoracic-abdominal profile.
The most important measured parameters.
| Group Measurements | Measurements | Abbreviations | Parameters of Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Geometric parameters | Superior arc length | SupArc | |
| Inferior arc length | InfArc | ✓ | |
| Total arc length | TotalArc | ||
| Superior curvature | K2 | ✓ | |
| Osculating circle radius up | R.osc.up | ||
| Inferior curvature | K1 | ✓ | |
| Osculating circle radius down | R.osc.down | ||
| Anterior push up |
| ✓ | |
| Inferior push up |
| ✓ | |
| Total area | |||
| Area above waist circumference | Area1 | ||
| Area below waist circumference | Area2 | ✓ | |
| Volume of area 2 | Vol. InfArc | ✓ | |
| Anthropological parameters | Height | ||
| Weight | |||
| Body mass index | BMI | ✓ | |
| Waist circumference | WC | ✓ | |
| Profile type (raised, fallen, flat, prominent, anterior advanced and inferior advanced) | RP, FP, FTP, PP, AntPr, InfPr | ✓ | |
| Ultrasound parameters | Anterior diameter of the right hepatic lobe | RHD | ✓ |
| Anterior diameter of the left hepatic lobe | LHD | ✓ | |
| Sum of hepatic lobes diameters | SHD | ✓ |
Figure 4Models of abdominal profiles A.
Figure 5Models of abdominal profiles B.
Statistical correlations between liver diameters and most significant measurements.
| Correlations | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RHD | LHD | SHD | ||
| WC | Pearson correlation ( | 0,.253 * | 0.369 ** | 0.355 ** |
| Significance ( | 0.011 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| BMI | Pearson correlation ( | 0.159 | 0.197 * | 0.209 * |
| Significance ( | 0.113 | 0.049 | 0.037 | |
| K2 | Pearson correlation ( | 0.087 | −0.115 | 0.020 |
| Significance ( | 0.390 | 0.253 | 0.845 | |
| InfArc | Pearson correlation ( | 0.286 ** | 0.276 ** | 0.342 ** |
| Significance ( | 0.004 | 0.005 | <0.001 | |
| Area2 | Pearson correlation ( | 0.267 ** | 0.303 ** | 0.338 ** |
| Significance ( | 0.007 | 0.002 | 0.001 | |
| Vol. InfArc | Pearson correlation ( | 0.215 * | 0.195 | 0.252 * |
| Significance ( | 0.031 | 0.051 | 0.011 | |
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). WC: waist circumference, BMI: body mass index, K2: superior curvature, InfArc: inferior arc length, Area2: area below waist circumference, Vol. InfArc: volume of area 2, RHD: right hepatic lobe diameter, LHD: left hepatic lobe diameter, SHD: sum of hepatic lobes diameters.
Partial correlations between SHD and most significant measurements, controlling the variables sex, height and weight.
| Partial Correlations | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| SHD | |||
| Control Variables (Sex, Height, Weight) | InfArc | Correlation | 0.283 |
| 0.005 | |||
| Area2 | Correlation | 0.230 | |
| 0.024 | |||
| Vol. InfArc | Correlation | 0.121 | |
| 0.239 | |||
Figure 6Linear regression between sum of hepatic lobes diameters (SHD) and InfArc parameters.
The mean difference of SHD between types of abdominal profiles.
| Mean Difference | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| SHD | Raised profile (RP) | 0.028 | 13.6 |
| Fallen profile (FP) | 0.373 | −6.7 | |
| Flat profile (FTP) | 0.237 | 7.1 | |
| Prominent profile (PP) | 0.024 | −18.1 | |
The mean difference of liver diameters between types of steatosis profiles.
| Mean Difference | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Type A steatosis profile vs. Type A non-steatosis profile (PP + AntPr over average vs. FTP + AntPr below average) | RHD | 0.119 | −11.0 |
| LHD | 0.167 | −5.4 | |
| SHD | 0.071 | −16.4 | |
| Type B steatosis profile vs. Type B non-steatosis profile (FP + InfPr over average vs. RP + InfPr below average) | RHD | 0.025 | −20.6 |
| LHD | 0.905 | 0.7 | |
| SHD | 0.102 | −20.0 | |