Erratum: Noninvasive assessment of hepatic steatosis using a pathologic reference standard: comparison of CT, MRI, and US-based techniques

Article information

Ultrasonography. 2023;42(2):356-356

Publication date (electronic) : 2023 March 29

doi : https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.21150.ER

Jae Seok Bae ¹^,², Dong Ho Lee ¹^,², Kyung-Suk Suh ³, Haeryoung Kim ⁴, Kyung Bun Lee ⁴, Jae Young Lee ¹^,²^,⁵, Joon Koo Han ¹^,²^,⁵

¹Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

³Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea

⁴Department of Pathology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea

⁵Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Korea

Ultrasonography 2022;41:344-354

https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.21150

The authors and publisher of the article would like to bring the reader’s attention to an error in Table 2 on page 350.

The ATI data for ‘Diagnostic performance of imaging tools for detecting HS ≥5%’ is incorrect and should be revised. Please see the corrected Table 2 below for the accurate data.

Table 2.

Diagnostic performance of imaging tools for detecting HS ≥5%

Values are percentages, with numerators and denominators in parentheses and 95% confidence intervals in brackets.

HS, hepatic steatosis; AUC, area under the curve; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; CT, computed tomography; MRI-PDFF, magnetic resonance imaging-derived proton density fat fraction; CAP, controlled attenuation parameter; US, ultrasound; ATI, attenuation imaging.

Article information Continued

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.