## 3 Results
In the presence of severe steatosis, the TE value was relatively lower than the ARFI value, which was evident by the lower slope among the high CAP versus the low CAP patients in both the biopsy and non-biopsy groups (Figure 2). This pattern was seen in the NAFLD and CHC patients, but not in the CHB patients. In the CHB patients within the non-biopsy group, liver stiffness values measured by TE were paradoxically higher in the high CAP patients than in the low CAP patients. When patients in the NAFLD and CHC subgroups were stratified by CAP and histological fibrosis scores, the mean fibrosis values measured by FIB4 index tended to be lower in the high CAP patients than in the low CAP patients at the various fibrosis stages (Table 3a, \(p\)\(\leq\) 0.002). As for the TE studies, significant or marginal differences in mean values between the high versus low CAP groups are listed in Table 3a (\(p\) = 0.03-0.071). A similar pattern was not present in the ARFI measurements in non-CHB patients (Table 3a). Such a trend was not present in the various fibrosis grades among patients with CHB between the low and high CAP groups (Table 3b). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \multicolumn{5}{c}{**(b)**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**NAFLD (N)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**CHB (B)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**CHC (C)**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**N = 125**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**N = 70**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**N = 26**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Multiple Comparisons**} \\ \hline Mean ARFI, m/s & \(1.34\pm 0.53\) & \(1.45\pm 0.58\) & \(1.71\pm 0.67\) & N \(\
eq\) C \\ Location A & \(1.35\pm 0.56\) & \(1.45\pm 0.56\) & \(1.69\pm 0.69\) & N \(\
eq\) C \\ Location B & \(1.32\pm 0.51\) & \(1.45\pm 0.61\) & \(1.73\pm 0.68\) & N \(\
eq\) C \\ IQR/Median & \(0.08\pm 0.04\) & \(0.09\pm 0.05\) & \(0.09\pm 0.06\) & NS \\ TE, kPa & \(8.95\pm 4.82\) & \(10.53\pm 7.80\) & \(15.43\pm 12.04\) & (N = B) \(\
eq\) C \\ IQR/Median & \(0.10\pm 0.04\) & \(0.10\pm 0.04\) & \(0.10\pm 0.05\) & NS \\ CAP, dB/m & \(304.4\pm 43.0\) & \(264.5\pm 46.9\) & \(254.5\pm 46.0\) & N \(\
eq\) (B = C) \\ FIB4 & \(1.39\pm 0.92\) & \(2.11\pm 1.42\) & \(3.09\pm 1.96\) & N \(\
eq\) B \(\
eq\) C \\ Histology & & & & \\ Fibrosis score & \(1.58\pm 1.16\) & \(2.31\pm 1.16\) & \(2.73\pm 1.31\) & N \(\
eq\) (B = C) \\ Fat cell \% & \(58.10\pm 28.57\) & \(23.50\pm 29.20\) & \(24.42\pm 29.75\) & N \(\
eq\) (B = C) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._  
Since the NAFLD and CHC subgroups had similar behavior in liver stiffness measurements, we evaluated their liver stiffness cutoff values between high and low CAP groups together (Table 4). We found that there was a 25.1% to 30.7% reduction in FIB4 cutoff values between the high CAP versus low CAP groups of patients with moderate fibrosis to cirrhosis (F2-4). The TE cutoff value for diagnosis of liver cirrhosis was 8.5% lower in the high cap versus low cap group. There was no difference (\(-\)2.4% to 1.3%) in ARFI cutoff values between the high and low CAP groups in different fibrosis stages. In addition to the parameter of FIB4 index, differences between CAP groups were comprised of higher AST level (68.27 \(\pm\) 41.48 vs. 54.03 \(\pm\) 19.57 U/L, \(p\) = 0.013) and older age (57.21 \(\pm\) 12.37 vs. 48.85 \(\pm\) 11.76 years, \(p\) < 0.001) in the low CAP versus the high CAP group.