Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38234005›Full record

ArticleThe Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences2024

Performance of noninvasive seromarkers in predicting liver fibrosis among MAFLD patients with or without viral hepatitis.

Chung-Feng Huang, Po-Cheng Liang, Chih-Wen Wang, Tyng-Yuan Jang, Po-Yao Hsu, Pei-Chien Tsai, Yu-Ju Wei, Ming-Lun Yeh, Ming-Yen Hsieh, Yi-Hung Lin and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chung-Feng HuangHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3367-068X
Po-Cheng LiangHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chih-Wen WangHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4720-599X
Tyng-Yuan JangHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2961-130X
Po-Yao HsuHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5443-7203
Pei-Chien TsaiHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5044-6727
Yu-Ju WeiHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Ming-Lun YehHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3728-7618
Ming-Yen HsiehHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Yi-Hung LinHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chao-Kuan HuangHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chia-Yen DaiHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Jee-Fu HuangHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Wan-Long ChuangHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Ming-Lung YuHepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8145-1900
Kaohsiung Medical University · TWNational Sun Yat-sen University · TW

Funding

Kaohsiung Medical University MOHW112-TDU-B-221-124007Kaohsiung Medical University MOST 110-2314-B-037-073-MY3Kaohsiung Medical University MOST 111-2314-B-037-069-MY2Kaohsiung Medical University MOST 111-2314-B-037-082Kaohsiung Medical University NSTC 112-2314-B-037-087Kaohsiung Medical University NYCUKMU-112-I001Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital KMUH108-8M03Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital KMUH109-9M03Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital KMUH110-0M04Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital KMUH110-0M06Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital KMUH111-1R02Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital KMUH111-1R04Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital KMUH111-1R06Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital KMUH-IIT-110-2-04Ministry of Education (MOE) KMHK-DK(C)111004Ministry of Education (MOE) KMHK-DK(C)111006Ministry of Education (MOE) MOHW112-TDU-B-221-124007Ministry of Education (MOE) NSTC 112-2321-B-001-006Ministry of Education (MOE) NYCUKMU-111-I001Ministry of Education (MOE) NYCUKMU-111-I004Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taiwan MOHW110-TDU-B-212-124006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The accuracy of noninvasive seromarkers in predicting liver fibrosis in metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) patients with or without viral hepatitis is elusive. The AST to platelet ratio index (APRI), fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), and NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS) were assessed in 871 MAFLD patients who received elastography in a viral hepatitis-endemic area. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve increased substantially with increasing fibrotic stage across the three biomarkers. APRI (AUROC range 0.73-0.80) and FIB-4 (AUROC range 0.66-0.82) performed better than NFS (AUROC range 0.63-0.75). When patients were divided into viral and non-viral MAFLD groups, a better AUROC of APRI (range 0.76-0.80) and FIB-4 (range 0.68-0.78) than NFS (range 0.62-70) existed only in viral MALFD but not in non-viral MAFLD. Regarding the NFS, the AUROC was higher in non-viral MAFLD (range 0.69-0.86) and outperformed viral MAFLD at all fibrotic stages. The accuracy in predicting liver fibrosis increased with the advancement of liver disease for the three biomarkers. NFS exerted better diagnostic accuracy in non-viral than in viral MAFLD patients across different fibrotic stages. The best accuracy was 91.1% using the cutoff value of -9.98 for the NFS in predicting liver cirrhosis in non-viral MAFLD patients. The APRI and FIB-4 performed better than the NFS in predicting liver fibrosis in MAFLD as a whole. The suboptimal performance and accuracy of the NFS existed only in viral MAFLD patients. Caution should be taken when assessing the NFS in MAFLD patients with viral hepatitis.

Indexed as

Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver DiseaseAspartate AminotransferasesBiomarkersBiopsyFibrosisHumansLiver CirrhosisROC CurveSeverity of Illness IndexAspartate AminotransferasesBiomarkersAPRIFIB4fibrosisMAFLDNFS

Identifiers

PMID38234005
PMCPMC11895577
OpenAlexW4390979784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.