Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 304

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Liver fat imaging—a clinical overview of ultrasound, CT, and MR imaging

Open access
Zhang, Yingzhen N, Fowler, Kathryn J, Hamilton, Gavin, Cui, Jennifer Y, Sy, Ethan Z, Balanay, Michelle, Hooker, Jonathan C, Szeverenyi, Nikolaus, Sirlin, Claude B·2018·The British Journal of Radiology

Abstract

Hepatic steatosis is a frequently encountered imaging finding that may indicate chronic liver disease, the most common of which is non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is implicated in the development of systemic diseases and its progressive phenotype, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, leads to increased liver-specific morbidity and mortality. With the rising obesity epidemic and advent of novel therapeutics aimed at altering metabolism, there is a growing need to quantify and monitor liver steatosis. Imaging methods for assessing steatosis range from simple and qualitative to complex and highly accurate metrics. Ultrasound may be appropriate in some clinical instances as a screening modality to identify the presence of abnormal liver morphology. However, it lacks sufficient specificity and sensitivity to constitute a diagnostic modality for instigating and monitoring therapy. Newer ultrasound techniques such as quantitative ultrasound show promise in turning qualitative assessment of steatosis on conventional ultrasound into quantitative measurements. Conventional unenhanced CT is capable of detecting and quantifying moderate to severe steatosis but is inaccurate at diagnosing mild steatosis and involves the use of radiation. Newer CT techniques, like dual energy CT, show potential in expanding the role of CT in quantifying steatosis. MRI proton-density fat fraction is currently the most accurate and precise imaging biomarker to quantify liver steatosis. As such, proton-density fat fraction is the most appropriate noninvasive end point for steatosis reduction in clinical trials and therapy response assessment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1259/bjr.20170959

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 82 references

Cited by

See all 304

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, Y. N., Fowler, K. J., Hamilton, G., Cui, J. Y., Sy, E. Z., Balanay, M., Hooker, J. C., Szeverenyi, N., & Sirlin, C. B.
Venue
The British Journal of Radiology
Published
2018-06-06
Volume
91
Issue
1089
Pages
20170959
ISSN
  • 0007-1285 (ISSN-L)
  • 1748-880X
OpenAlex
W2799523744
Cited by
304
References
82
FWCI
12.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Liver fat imaging—a clinical overview of ultrasound, CT, and MR imaging. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1259/bjr.20170959
The paper
Zhang, Y. N., Fowler, K. J., Hamilton, G., Cui, J. Y., Sy, E. Z., Balanay, M., Hooker, J. C., Szeverenyi, N., & Sirlin, C. B. (2018). Liver fat imaging—a clinical overview of ultrasound, CT, and MR imaging. The British Journal of Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170959

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.