ArticleBMC gastroenterology2024
Determining the sensitivity and specificity of the calculated fatty liver index in comparison with ultrasound.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between fatty liver index and kidney function using updated MASLD and CKD-EPI 2021 definitions: a population-based study with region-specific cutoffs.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease is associated with androgenetic alopecia in adults with stronger effects in women and unhealthy lifestyles.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and pregnancy.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2025Review
- Correlation Between Lipid Accumulation Product and Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease in Chinese Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2025Article
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
backgroundNon-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common chronic liver disease in human history and it is expected to surpass other causes of liver disease mortality by 2030. Therefore, finding an alternative way to diagnose steatosis in the early stage when imaging modalities are not available is crucial. This study decided to validate the optimal cut-off points and the sensitivity and specificity of the Fatty Liver Index (FLI) based on the Iranian population compared to ultrasonography.
methodsThe data of 367 individuals, 108 males and 259 females over 35, were analyzed. Hepatic steatosis was identified by ultrasound. FLI was determined from waist circumference, gamma-glutamyl transferase, triglyceride, and body mass index data. The receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was used to determine the best FLI index cut point for diagnosing nonalcoholic fatty liver. The sensitivity and specificity indices were calculated for the determined cut point.
resultsThe AUC of the FLI index in diagnosing NAFLD in the total population was 0.733 (95% CI: 0.68-0.77, specificity = 0.6705, sensitivity = 0.7320) with the optimal COP of 40.6. There was a statistically significant association between non-alcoholic liver disease and FLI-based ultrasound (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, the sex-specific optimal COPs of FLI was 33.4, specificity = 0.6071, sensitivity = 0.8462 in men vs. 27.8, sensitivity = 0.8233, specificity = 0.7655 in women.
conclusionFLI is a reliable tool for identifying individuals with NAFLD. It has the potential to aid in detecting and managing this condition in large-scale populations while other methods are not available. We also determine an optimal COP of 40.6 with sensitivity and specificity of 73.20% and 67.05% in the general population, respectively.
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.