ArticleHepatology (Baltimore, Md.)2026
Proton density fat fraction for diagnosis of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease.
Article in Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of machine learning and deep learning in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of advanced research · 2026Pooled it
- Global Longitudinal Assessment of MASLD Using Magnetic Resonance Elastography (GOLDMINE): A Multi-Center, International Prospective Cohort Study of Imaging Biomarkers in MASLD Clinical Outcomes.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2026Article
- Automated Deep Learning Detection of Hepatic Steatosis on Noncontrast Computed Tomography Scans and Discrepancy With Scan Reports.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2026Article
- Comparative Precision of 3D MRE and 2D MRE for Measurement of Liver Stiffness in Adults with Severe Obesity.Radiology · 2026Article
- Highly Reproducible, Vendor-Agnostic, Motion-Insensitive Liver PDFF Mapping at 0.55T, 1.5T, and 3T.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Radiogenomics and machine learning in hepatocellular carcinoma: from foundations to clinical translation.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Cardiovascular Implications in Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD): A State-of-the-Art Review.Korean circulation journal · 2026Review
- Motion-Insensitive Flip Angle Modulated Liver Proton Density Fat-Fraction and R2* Mapping During Free-Breathing MRI in a Clinical Setting.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPrior work has shown that MRI-derived proton density fat fraction (PDFF) can diagnose metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) noninvasively, but there is a paucity of data on the performance of PDFF to classify more advanced forms of the MASLD spectrum. The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of PDFF for the diagnoses of MASLD, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), and fibrotic MASH in adults with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery, using contemporaneous intraoperative liver biopsy as a reference. APPROACH AND
resultsPDFF was evaluated alone and with other potential classifiers (imaging, serum and anthropometric), using Bayesian Information Criterion-based stepwise logistic regression models. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC) were computed for all models and single classifiers. Cross-validated sensitivity and specificity were calculated at Youden-based PDFF classification thresholds. Data analysis from 140 patients demonstrated that PDFF was the most accurate single classifier, with high AUC for MASLD (0.95), MASH (0.85), and fibrotic MASH (0.82) (all p <0.001). Multivariable models, including PDFF, outperformed those without PDFF. The Youden-based threshold for PDFF was 4.4% for MASLD (sensitivity: 87%, specificity: 86%), 6.9% for MASH (sensitivity: 77%, specificity: 66%), and 13.5% for fibrotic MASH (sensitivity: 67%, specificity: 85%).
conclusionsPDFF was the most accurate single classifier for diagnosing MASLD, MASH, and fibrotic MASH. The most accurate multivariable classification models for MASLD, MASH, and fibrotic MASH included PDFF, demonstrating the central importance of PDFF for noninvasive assessment of the MASLD spectrum.
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.