ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
Validation of the diagnostic accuracy of the acFibroMASH index for at-risk MASH in patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to validate the diagnostic accuracy of the acFibroMASH index in a population of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) patients with at-risk metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and to compare it with other scoring systems.
methods394 patients with biopsy-proven MASLD were retrospectively enrolled. The patients were divided into the at-risk MASH (NAFLD activity score ≥ 4 and significant fibrosis) group (n = 103) and the non-at-risk MASH group (n = 291). The diagnostic performance of the acFibroMASH index was compared to that of fibroScan-aspartate aminotransferase (FAST) and other noninvasive fibrosis scores by plotting the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), including the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. Cut-offs of the acFibroMASH index for sensitivity (≥ 0.90) and specificity (≥ 0.90) were obtained in our cohort.
resultsThe AUC of the acFibroMASH index in assessing at-risk MASH was 0.780, while the AUC of FAST was 0.770. The comparison of acFibroMASH with FAST showed no significant difference (P = 0.542). When the cut-off value for acFibroMASH was < 0.15, 95.5% of at-risk MASH patients could be excluded in 89 patients correctly. Conversely, when the cut-off value was set at > 0.39, 49.3% of at-risk MASH patients could be diagnosed in 140 patients correctly. When the NPV was set at 0.900, the critical value for exclusion was determined to be 0.23, with a sensitivity of 0.835 and a specificity of 0.526.
conclusionThis study validated the efficacy of the acFibroMASH index in predicting at-risk MASH in a population of MASLD patients, demonstrating comparable performance to that of the FAST. The acFibroMASH index may provide a valuable clinical basis for screening and identifying at-risk MASH in primary care settings.
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.