[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-465507-105":59,"doc-detail-465507-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","fat-content-quantification-with-us-attenuation-coefficient-phantom-correlation-with-mri-proton-density-fat-fraction","Fat Content Quantification with US Attenuation Coefficient - Phantom Correlation with MRI Proton Density Fat Fraction","","Objective: This study evaluates the consistency and reproducibility of attenuation coefficient (AC) measurements across different commercial ultrasound systems via phantom experiments, relating AC to MRI-derived proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) and a conversion equation. Methods: Twelve phantoms with varying fat proportions (0–100%) were constructed. AC was estimated using ATI, USAT, and UGAP, alongside MRI-PDFF, and agreement was assessed. Results: MRI-PDFF and phantom fat concentration showed strong correlation (R2=0.996, p\u003C0.001). ICCs were high across operators, with no significant differences by Bland–Altman (all p>0.05). Conversion for fat proportions ≤50% was derived: US (dB/cm/MHz)=0.501+0.012·MRI-PDFF(%).",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/fat-content-quantification-with-us-attenuation-coefficient-phantom-correlation-with-mri-proton-density-fat-fraction/465507/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/fat-content-quantification-with-us-attenuation-coefficient-phantom-correlation-with-mri-proton-density-fat-fraction/465507.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Kyle","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-06","2026-09-30",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":19},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What was the main objective of the phantom study?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"To evaluate how consistently and reproducibly attenuation coefficient (AC) can be measured across different commercial ultrasound systems, and how AC relates to MRI-PDFF and the resulting conversion equation.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How were AC measurements obtained in the study?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"AC was estimated using three ultrasound attenuation approaches: attenuation imaging (ATI), ultrasound attenuation analysis (USAT), and the US-guided attenuation parameter (UGAP), together with MRI-PDFF measurements.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What conversion relationship did the authors derive between ultrasound and MRI-PDFF?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"For fat proportions ≤50%, the conversion formula was derived as US (dB/cm/MHz) = 0.501 + 0.012 × MRI-PDFF (%).","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},465507,1790876438,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":19,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":41},3985741905716,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","Article  \nFat Content Quantification with US Attenuation Coefficient: Phantom Correlation with MRI Proton Density Fat Fraction  \nRongying Chen 1,†, Genglin Zhang 2,†, Jie Zeng 1,†, Yin Zhang 1, Haixin Chen 3, Jie Ren 1, Xin Chen 3, Manli Wu 1, Haoming Lin 3, *,‡ and Ting Zhang 1, *,‡  \nAcademic Editor: Zhuhuang Zhou  \nReceived: 6 November 2025  \nRevised: 4 December 2025  \nAccepted: 6 December 2025  \nPublished: 25 December 2025  \nCopyright: © 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.  \n1 Department of Medical Ultrasonics, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510630, China; [zengjie5@mail.sysu.edu.cn](zengjie5@mail.sysu.edu.cn) (J.Z.)  \n2 Department of Infectious Disease, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510630, China  \n3 National-Regional Key Technology Engineering Laboratory for Medical Ultrasound, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Biomedical Measurements and Ultrasound Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering, Shenzhen University Medical School, Shenzhen 518071, China  \n* [Correspondence: hm_lin@szu.edu.cn](Correspondence: hm_lin@szu.edu.cn) (H.L.); [zhangt66@mail.sysu.edu.cn](zhangt66@mail.sysu.edu.cn) (T.Z.)† These authors contributed equally to this work and are considered co-first authors.  \n‡ These authors contributed equally to this work and are considered co-corresponding authors.  \nAbstract  \nObjective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the consistency and reproducibility of attenuation coefficient (AC) measurements using different commercial ultrasound (US) across via a phantom experiment to investigate the relationship between the AC and MRI-derived proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) values and the conversion equation. Methods: Twelve phantoms containing varying fat proportions (0–100%) were constructed. Phantom ACs were estimated via three US attenuation systems, including attenuation imaging (ATI), ultrasound attenuation analysis (USAT), and the US-guided attenuation parameter (UGAP), along with MRI-PDFF. Agreement among the AC values from the three ultrasonic attenuation systems was evaluated. Linear correlation analysis was used to explore the ACs, fat concentrations of the phantom, and MRI-PDFF measurements, from which a linear conversion formula between the ultrasonic attenuation parameters and the MRI-PDFF was derived. Results: MRI-PDFF and phantom fat concentration measurements appeared with a strong linear correlation (R2 = 0.996, p \u003C 0.001). For the three US attenuation parameters, both inter-operator and intra-operator intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranged from 0.990 to 0.995 and 0.989 to 0.995, respectively. Bland–Altman analysis revealed no significant differences between the above three (all p > 0.05). Significant linear relationships were demonstrated between ultrasound attenuation parameters and phantom fat concentration (r = 0.938–0.986; all p \u003C 0.001), as well as between ultrasound attenuation parameters and MRI-PDFF values (r = 0.922–0.982; all p \u003C 0.001). A conversion formula (fat proportions ≤ 50%) was derived: US (dB/cm/MHz) = 0.501 + 0.012 MRI-PDFF (%). Conclusions: AC across different commercial ultrasound devices demonstrated significant diagnostic value in fat concentrations that appeared good consistency in measuring phantom fat concentration both between and within groups. The linear relationship between AC and MRI-PDFF enables the application of a conversion formula.  \nKeywords: attenuation coefficient; ultrasound; fatty liver; MRI-PDFF  \n1. Introduction  \nMetabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), previously termed metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), has emerged as the most prevalent chronic liver disease globally, affecting at least 30% of the adult population worldwide [1,2] . In China, th","cbCaiqyEfqS4tXRJ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiqyEfqS4tXRJ","pdf",3435392,12,"English","# Abstract\n## Objective\n## Methods\n## Results\n## Conclusions\n# Introduction","[{\"question\":\"What was the main objective of the phantom study?\",\"answer\":\"To evaluate how consistently and reproducibly attenuation coefficient (AC) can be measured across different commercial ultrasound systems, and how AC relates to MRI-PDFF and the resulting conversion equation.\"},{\"question\":\"How were AC measurements obtained in the study?\",\"answer\":\"AC was estimated using three ultrasound attenuation approaches: attenuation imaging (ATI), ultrasound attenuation analysis (USAT), and the US-guided attenuation parameter (UGAP), together with MRI-PDFF measurements.\"},{\"question\":\"What conversion relationship did the authors derive between ultrasound and MRI-PDFF?\",\"answer\":\"For fat proportions ≤50%, the conversion formula was derived as US (dB/cm/MHz) = 0.501 + 0.012 × MRI-PDFF (%).\"}]","Fat Content Quantification with US Attenuation Coefficient - Phantom Correlation with MRI Proton Density Fat Fraction | PDF",1790769706]