## 9 Results and Discussion
A correlation of \(+1\) indicates a perfect positive correlation, meaning that both variables move in the same direction together. The \(p\)-value is the probability of the correlation coefficient to be in fact zero (null hypothesis). If this probability is lower than the conventional 5% (\(p<0.05\)) the correlation coefficient is called statistically significant. The \(p\)-value in this study represents the probability that  
Figure 12: Two samples show the area where the CT slices are selected from. (**a**) Front view, (**b**) side view. the correlation between fat ratios and Liver HU average in the used sample data occurred by chance. A \(p\)-value of 0.07 indicates that there is a chance of 7% that results from the used data occurred due to chance. A \(p\)-value of 0.02 indicates that there is only a 2% chance. Therefore, a lower \(p\)-value is a good sign that the finding of the correlation study is generally considered statistically significant. In most research, the threshold for what is considered statistically significant is a \(p\)-value of 0.05 or below. Statistical analysis for the measured fat ratios and the liver mean HU values shows that there is no strong correlation between the liver HU mean values and any one of the abdomen fat ratios. Results also show that there is a correlation that can be described as medium, negative, and significant between the liver HU mean and the TFR, and between the liver HU mean and the VFR. This indicates that somehow, when these two ratios increased, the liver mean HU decreased, which means the level of the diffused fat in the liver will increase. Results also show that the correlation between the SFR ratio and the liver HU mean is weak, negative, and insignificant. Table 3 shows the correlation coefficients and the \(p\)-values between the liver HU and the fat ratios. In Table 3, the strongest correlation was found between the TFR and the liver mean HU value. However, this correlation does not reach the level where it can be described as a strong correlation. Another medium negative correlation was found between the VFR and liver mean HU value. Both correlations are significant. The SFR shows a weak correlation with the liver mean HU value. Figures 14-16 show the distribution of obtained liver HU mean values and the TFR, SFR, and VFR ratios, respectively. Each subject from the data set is presented by a blue dot where the average of the HU values for each subject with the ratio of the total fat, subcutaneous fat and visceral fat to the total abdominal body region respectively are used to demonstrate the collected data for that subject on the figure. The red line on the scatterplot displays the strength, direction, and form of the relationship between two quantitative variables (HU and the fat ratios). Figure 13: Variation of liver HU values. (**a**) Low HU value, (**b**) high HU value. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline  & **Correlation Coefficients and \(p\)-Values** \\ \hline Liver HU and TFR & R = \(-\)0.3382, (\(p\) = 0.0001) \\ Liver HU and SFR & R = \(-\)0.1620, (\(p\) = 0.07) \\ Liver UH and VFR & R = \(-\)0.3168, (\(p\) = 0.0003) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The correlation table. Figure 14: The plot of TFR vs. liver mean HU values. Figure 15: The plot of SFR vs. liver mean HU values. The direction of the slope of the line in Figures 14-16 indicates that there is a negative correlation between the mentioned observations, which means that when the fate ratios increase in a subject, the HU value decreases since liver density is inversely related to liver fat accordingly. However, the degree of the slope of the red line shows that the correlation is not strong. The obtained results indicate that the accumulation of fat inside the abdomen cavity and the accumulation of the abdomen fat can be linked to the level of liver diffused fat. From the results, it can be said that the accumulation of abdomen fat is not the main reason for increasing the level of diffused fat in the liver.