↓ Skip to main content

Stereological Analysis of Liver Biopsy Histology Sections as a Reference Standard for Validating Non-Invasive Liver Fat Fraction Measurements by MRI

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Stereological Analysis of Liver Biopsy Histology Sections as a Reference Standard for Validating Non-Invasive Liver Fat Fraction Measurements by MRI
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0160789
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tim G. St. Pierre, Michael J. House, Sander J. Bangma, Wenjie Pang, Andrew Bathgate, Eng K. Gan, Oyekoya T. Ayonrinde, Prithi S. Bhathal, Andrew Clouston, John K. Olynyk, Leon A. Adams

Abstract

Validation of non-invasive methods of liver fat quantification requires a reference standard. However, using standard histopathology assessment of liver biopsies is problematical because of poor repeatability. We aimed to assess a stereological method of measuring volumetric liver fat fraction (VLFF) in liver biopsies and to use the method to validate a magnetic resonance imaging method for measurement of VLFF. VLFFs were measured in 59 subjects (1) by three independent analysts using a stereological point counting technique combined with the Delesse principle on liver biopsy histological sections and (2) by three independent analysts using the HepaFat-Scan® technique on magnetic resonance images of the liver. Bland Altman statistics and intraclass correlation (IC) were used to assess the repeatability of each method and the bias between the methods of liver fat fraction measurement. Inter-analyst repeatability coefficients for the stereology and HepaFat-Scan® methods were 8.2 (95% CI 7.7-8.8)% and 2.4 (95% CI 2.2-2.5)% VLFF respectively. IC coefficients were 0.86 (95% CI 0.69-0.93) and 0.990 (95% CI 0.985-0.994) respectively. Small biases (≤3.4%) were observable between two pairs of analysts using stereology while no significant biases were observable between any of the three pairs of analysts using HepaFat-Scan®. A bias of 1.4±0.5% VLFF was observed between the HepaFat-Scan® method and the stereological method. Repeatability of the stereological method is superior to the previously reported performance of assessment of hepatic steatosis by histopathologists and is a suitable reference standard for validating non-invasive methods of measurement of VLFF.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Researcher 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 38%
Engineering 4 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 6 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 August 2016.
All research outputs
#4,191,741
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#59,835
of 195,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,229
of 364,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,071
of 4,349 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 195,164 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,241 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,349 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.