Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Eur Radiol. 2018 Dec 13;29(5):2474–2480. doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5894-0

Table 2.

Statistically significant pairwise segment comparisons

Pairwise comparisons Difference in the rate of PDFF
decline (95% CI)
Segment 5 – Segment 2 0.34 (0.11–0.58)
Segment 5 – Segment 4b 0.21 (0.03–0.44)
Segment 6 – Segment 2 0.36 (0.12–0.57)
Segment 6 – Segment 4b 0.23 (0.04–0.48)
Segment 7 – Segment 2 0.41 (0.06–0.68)
Segment 7 – Segment 3 0.25 (0.04–0.48)
Segment 7 – Segment 4b 0.27 (0.02–0.51)
Segment 8 – Segment 4b 0.20 (0.04–0.39)
Right lobe – Left lobe 0.22 (0.11–0.34)

PDFF, proton density fat fraction; CI, confidence interval; p-values less than 0.00138 were considered significant at family-wise 0.05 error rate.