Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Patient characteristics.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

Box plots of the CPAa (A) and SWVb (B).

acollagen proportionate area; bshear wave velocity.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

ROCa curves dichotomizing liver fibrosis stages.

To dichotomize F1 versus F2–4 (A), the AUROCb for the CPAc was 0.9349 (95% confidence interval: 0.8943–0.9755) and SWVd was 0.8434 (0.7762–0.9105) (CPA versus SWV, P = 0.0063). For F1, 2 versus F3, 4 (B), the CPA was 0.9436 (0.9091–0.9781); SWV was 0.8997 (0.8444–0.9551) (P = 0.1587). For F1–3 versus F4 (C), the CPA was 0.8647 (0.7944–0.9349); SWV was 0.9036 (0.8499–0.9573) (P = 0.2585). APRIe was incorporated too. areceiver operating characteristic; barea under ROC curves; ccollagen proportionate area; dshear wave velocity; easpartate transaminase-to-platelet ratio index.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 2.

Liver fibrosis dichotomization using the CPA and SWV.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Multiple regression analyses for the CPAa.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Multiple regression analyses for the SWVd.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 3.

Scatter plot between the CPAa (Y-axis) and SWVb (X-axis).

For CPA prediction by using SWV through univariate linear regression, the CPA (%) = -4.768 + SWV (m/s) × 10.184, as a line of best fit (R2 = 0.455, P < 0.001). Eight of 137 cases (5.8%) exceeded the 95% confidence intervals. acollagen proportionate area; bshear wave velocity.

More »

Fig 3 Expand