Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 285

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diagnostic Value of a Computerized Hepatorenal Index for Sonographic Quantification of Liver Steatosis

Webb, Muriel, Yeshua, Hanny, Zelber-Sagi, Shira, Santo, Erwin, Brazowski, Eli, Halpern, Zamir, Oren, Ran·2009·American Journal of Roentgenology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Quantification of liver steatosis is clinically relevant in various liver diseases but cannot be done by conventional sonography, which only provides a qualitative assessment with significant observer variability. The aim of this study was to assess sonography as an objective tool for the quantification of liver steatosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Files of 111 patients with chronic liver disease who were referred for sonographically guided liver biopsy were collected. A hepatorenal sonographic index was calculated on the basis of the ratio between the echogenicity of the liver and that of the right kidney cortex using histogram echo intensity. Liver steatosis was graded by histology. RESULTS: A significant correlation was found between histologic steatosis and the hepatorenal sonographic index (r = 0.82, p < 0.001). The validity of the hepatorenal sonographic index for the diagnosis of fatty liver was compared with liver biopsies with a steatosis level > 5%. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 99.2% (95% CI, 98-100%). The optimal hepatorenal sonographic index cutoff point for the prediction of steatosis > 5% was 1.49, with sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 91%. The optimal hepatorenal sonographic index cutoff point for the prediction of steatosis >/= 25% was 1.86, with sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 90%. The optimal hepatorenal sonographic index cutoff point for the prediction of steatosis >/= 60% was 2.23, with sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 93%. CONCLUSION: The hepatorenal sonographic index is a sensitive noninvasive method for steatosis quantification. It can diagnose small amounts of liver fat that would be missed by conventional sonography. It is reproducible and operator independent and can serve as an efficient tool to follow patients with steatosis and evaluate the efficacy of new treatment techniques.

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 · 10.2214/ajr.07.4016

Cites

50 of 50 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 50 references

Cited by

See all 285

Metadata

Authors
Webb, M., Yeshua, H., Zelber-Sagi, S., Santo, E., Brazowski, E., Halpern, Z., & Oren, R.
Venue
American Journal of Roentgenology
Published
2009-04
Volume
192
Issue
4
Pages
909-914
ISSN
  • 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
  • 0361-803X
  • 1546-3141
OpenAlex
W2155664277
Cited by
285
References
50
FWCI
6.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Diagnostic Value of a Computerized Hepatorenal Index for Sonographic Quantification of Liver Steatosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2214/ajr.07.4016
The paper
Webb, M., Yeshua, H., Zelber-Sagi, S., Santo, E., Brazowski, E., Halpern, Z., & Oren, R. (2009). Diagnostic Value of a Computerized Hepatorenal Index for Sonographic Quantification of Liver Steatosis. American Journal of Roentgenology. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.07.4016

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.