ArticleBMC gastroenterology2024
Evaluating the efficacy of 8 non-invasive models in predicting MASLD and progression: a prospective study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated serum metabolomics and MRI biomarkers for MASLD: a practical framework for noninvasive staging and monitoring.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Plasma-targeted proteomic and lipidomic profiling of MASLD, MASH, and hepatitis C virus infection.Clinical proteomics · 2026Article
- Article
- Development and validation of an online nomogram for screening metabolic-associated fatty liver disease in obese children.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Prevalence and health checkup-based detection of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease in Japanese young adults.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
- Epidemiology and diagnostic of MASLD in Latin America: a yet to be met challenge.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Liver-related Events and Outcomes in Patients With Metabolic Dysfunction-associated Steatotic Liver Disease Varies With the Type of Cardiometabolic Risk Factor.Journal of clinical and experimental hepatologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelecting the optimal non-invasive diagnostic model for MASLD (Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatosis Liver Disease) and steatosis progression is a critical issue given the variety of available models. We aimed to compare the performance of eight clinical prediction models for diagnosing and predicting the progression of hepatic steatosis using MRI-PDFF (Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Derived Proton Density Fat Fraction), and validate the findings with FibroScan and histopathological results.
methodsIn this study, 846 participants were initially enrolled, with 108 undergoing liver biopsy and 706 completing one-year follow-up, including 26 who underwent repeat biopsy. We calculated scores for eight clinical prediction models (FAST, KNAFLD, HSI, FLI, Liver Fat Score, Liver Fat Equation, BAAT, LAP) using collected clinical data and defined steatosis progression as a 30% relative increase in liver fat content (LFC) measured by MRI-PDFF. CAP(Controlled Attenuation Parameter) and LSM (Liver Stiffness Measurement) were obtained by Fibroscan. MRI-PDFF served as the reference standard for evaluating model accuracy, and sensitivity analyses were performed using liver biopsy and Fibroscan results.
resultsAmong the eight clinical models, NAS (nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score) showed higher correlation with the FAST and KNAFLD models (r: 0.62 and 0.52, respectively). Among the whole cohort (N = 846), KNAFLD was the best model for predicting different degrees of hepatic steatosis (AUC = 0.84). When the KNAFLD score was above 2.935, LFC was significantly higher (4.4% vs. 19.7%, P < 0.001). After 1 year of follow-up (N = 706), FAST performed best in predicting MASLD progression (AUC = 0.84); with dFAST > -0.02, LFC increased (8.6-10.9%, P < 0.05), mean LSM increased by 0.51 kPa, and with dFAST < -0.02, LFC significantly decreased (11.5-8.5%, P < 0.05), mean LSM and NAS decreased by 0.87 kPa and 0.76, respectively (both P < 0.05).
conclusionsMost models demonstrated good diagnostic and prognostic capabilities for hepatic steatosis, with FAST and KNAFLD showing particular promise as primary non-invasive tools in clinical practice. TRAIL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry NO: ChiCTR2100054743, Registered December 26, 2021.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.