| Literature DB >> 31864367 |
Xiudong Shi1, Wen Ye1, Fengjun Liu1, Rengyin Zhang1, Qinguo Hou1, Chunzi Shi2, Jinhua Yu3,4, Yuxin Shi5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An efficient and accurate approach to quantify the steatosis extent of liver is important for clinical practice. For the purpose, we propose a specific designed ultrasound shear wave sequence to estimate ultrasonic and shear wave physical parameters. The utilization of the estimated quantitative parameters is then studied.Entities:
Keywords: Learning-based model; Liver steatosis quantification; Ultrasonic and shear wave parameter estimation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31864367 PMCID: PMC6925885 DOI: 10.1186/s12938-019-0742-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 2.819
Inclusion and exclusion criteria of patients for the study
| Inclusion criteria |
| Age > 18 years |
| With a negative hepatitis B virus surface antigen and hepatitis C virus antibody |
| Willingness to undergo ultrasound and magnetic resonance examinations |
| Signed informed consent form |
| Exclusion criteria |
| With a history of other liver disease or diabetes |
| Excess alcoholic drinking [ |
| Taking hypolipidemic drug, liver protectant, or drugs that could cause steatosis |
| With clinical symptoms or signs of other liver disease |
| MR examination contraindications (such as claustrophobia, cardiac pacemakers or metal implants) |
| Pregnant patients |
Fig. 1Demonstration of the acquired data in the study. a denotes the interface of the ultrasound data acquisition based on the designed ultrasound sequence. b, d The direct logarithmic results of the envelope of the corresponding raw radiofrequency ultrasound data. c, e The MRI fat quantification results. b, c are from the patient with liver fat fraction as 2.56%. d, e are from the patient with liver fat fraction as 29.45%. The scale bar in ultrasound images denotes the intensity and the one in MRI images denotes the percentage of fat fraction
Characteristics of the study patients
| MR mDIXON quantification hepatic fat content (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| < 5 | 5–10 | 10–20 | > 20 | Total | |
| Characteristic | |||||
| Number of participants | 26 | 18 | 11 | 5 | 60 |
| Age (year) | 36 (23–67) | 43 (19–69) | 49 (27–68) | 32 (26–42) | 41 (19–69) |
| Sex (male/female) | 20/6 | 9/9 | 5/6 | 4/1 | 38/22 |
| Anthropometric measures | |||||
| Weight (kg) | 64.9 ± 11.1 | 68.3 ± 8.1 | 73.7 ± 13.2 | 78.8 ± 11.9 | 68.8 ± 11.5 |
| Height (cm) | 168.5 ± 6.2 | 165.5 ± 5.4 | 164.3 ± 6.2 | 169.8 ± 5.2 | 167.0 ± 6.1 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.9 ± 3.1 | 25.0 ± 2.4 | 27.2 ± 3.2 | 27.4 ± 2.8 | 24.7 ± 3.4 |
| Ultrasound parameter estimated results | |||||
| Echo attenuation (dB/MHz/cm) | 0.654 ± 0.132 | 0.713 ± 0.059 | 0.791 ± 0.117 | 0.832 ± 0.046 | 0.706 ± 0.121 |
| Elasticity (kPa) | 9.45 ± 3.90 | 9.75 ± 5.33 | 8.62 ± 2.41 | 10.3 ± 4.50 | 9.46 ± 4.15 |
| Dispersion slope (m/s/Hz) | 3.27 ± 10.2 | 5.54 ± 4.17 | 2.62 ± 10.1 | 2.97 ± 6.55 | 3.82 ± 8.48 |
| Shear wave attenuation (Neper/m) | 183.1 ± 57.9 | 178.7 ± 24.7 | 161.6 ± 41.3 | 138.7 ± 19.6 | 175.2 ± 46.3 |
| Shear wave absorption (Neper/m) | 61.1 ± 16.8 | 59.6 ± 11.3 | 55.3 ± 14.5 | 49.3 ± 9.55 | 58.9 ± 14.6 |
| Model by using the combination of all parameters (%) | 4.5 ± 4.3 | 7.8 ± 2.4 | 13.1 ± 4.3 | 25.9 ± 2.4 | 8.3 ± 6.7 |
Experimental results on phantoms
| Estimated parameter | Phantom | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 040GSE | 040GSE | House-made oil phantom | |
| Echo attenuation (dB/MHz/cm) | 0.5132 ± 0.0367 | 0.7018 ± 0.0373 | 0.7563 ± 0.1605 |
| Elasticity (kPa) | 22.1111 ± 8.5971 | 17.8650 ± 5.1068 | 51.6250 ± 5.8750 |
| Dispersion slope (m/s/Hz) | 0.4821 ± 0.2612 | 0.4518 ± 0.3792 | 3.5391 ± 2.2279 |
| Shear wave attenuation (Neper/m) | 65.9084 ± 4.0722 | 74.8187 ± 18.3371 | 51.9126 ± 17.4872 |
| Shear wave absorption (Neper/m) | 53.6819 ± 1.4880 | 61.9683 ± 3.8338 | 38.4690 ± 5.1999 |
Fig. 2The experimental results of all 60 patient data denoting the relationship between the estimated parameters and the liver fat proportion from MR mDIXON quantification, which are a echo attenuation, b elasticity, c dispersion slope, d shear wave attenuation, e shear wave absorption and f model using the combination of all parameters
The correlation coefficients between the estimation results and the liver fat proportion from MR mDIXON quantification
| Methods | Correlation coefficients | |
|---|---|---|
| Echo attenuation | 0.4594 (95% CI 0.2327 to 0.6388) | 0.00022 |
| Elasticity | 0.0283 (95% CI -0.2273 to 0.2802) | 0.83 |
| Dispersion slope | 0.0447 (95% CI -0.2116 to 0.2953) | 0.73 |
| Shear wave attenuation | − 0.2542 (95% CI − 0.4773 to − 0.0003) | 0.050 |
| Shear wave absorption | − 0.2599 (95% CI − 0.4820 to − 0.0064) | 0.044 |
| Model using the combination of all parameters | 0.8305 (95% CI 0.7306 to 0.8956) | < 0.00001 |
Fig. 3The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of different methods for the discrimination of fatty liver disease
The statistical analysis of the experimental results of different methods regarding the discrimination of fatty liver disease
| Method | Statistical results with the corresponding optimal cut-off values from ROC curves for different methods | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEN (%) | SPC (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | ACC (%) | AUC | |
| Echo attenuation | 84.38 | 67.86 | 75.00 | 79.17 | 76.67 | 0.73 |
| Elasticity | 78.13 | 32.14 | 56.82 | 56.25 | 56.67 | 0.51 |
| Dispersion slope | 90.63 | 39.29 | 63.04 | 78.57 | 66.67 | 0.60 |
| Shear wave attenuation | 84.38 | 32.14 | 58.70 | 64.29 | 60.00 | 0.54 |
| Shear wave absorption | 78.13 | 46.43 | 62.50 | 65.00 | 63.33 | 0.60 |
| Model by using the combination of all parameters | 87.50 | 92.86 | 93.33 | 86.67 | 90.00 | 0.93 |
Fig. 4The details of the established regression tree model by combining all the parameters where ×1, ×2, ×3, ×4 and ×5 denote the parameter values of shear wave absorption, echo attenuation, elasticity, dispersion slope and shear wave attenuation, respectively
The validation results of the proposed method by randomly using a proportion of the patient data as the independent testing data and using the rest of the patient data to establish the corresponding machine-learning model
| Proportion of the independent testing data in the entire patient data (%) | Correlation coefficients between the model’s estimation results and the liver fat proportion from MR mDIXON quantification | P value |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 0.8249 (95% CI 0.7223 to 0.8920) | < 0.00001 |
| 10 | 0.8049 (95% CI 0.6925 to 0.8791) | < 0.00001 |
| 15 | 0.7816 (95% CI 0.7173 to 0.8326) | < 0.00001 |