ArticleScientific reports2026
Optimized CAP cut-offs for metabolic dysfunction associated steatotic liver disease in patients living with obesity: a large biopsy-based prospective study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Controlled Attenuation Parameter (CAP) quantifies hepatic steatosis non-invasively, but current cut-offs limit diagnostic precision, especially in obese populations. We aimed to validate CAP against liver biopsy and propose optimized thresholds tailored for obesity. In this single-centre, cross-sectional, biopsy-validated study, 798 adults undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 629) or sleeve gastrectomy (n = 169) between 2019 and 2024 were included. All underwent Fibro Scan and wedge liver biopsy. Histology was scored by two blinded pathologists. Diagnostic accuracy of CAP was assessed using AUROC, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, calibration, net reclassification improvement (NRI), integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), and decision curve analysis (DCA). Newly derived cut-offs were benchmarked against existing ones. Histology revealed S0 in 72.7%, S1 in 19.7%, S2 in 7.0%, and S3 in 0.6%. Standard CAP cut-offs showed suboptimal specificity (49.7% for ≥S1, 55.8% for ≥S2). Newly derived thresholds of 290 dB/m (≥ S1) and 317 dB/m (≥ S2) improved specificity (74.4% and 82.5%) while maintaining good sensitivity (62.7% and 71.7%). NRI and DCA demonstrated superior alignment and higher net benefit compared with all published thresholds. Optimized CAP cut-offs (290 and 317 dB/m) provide better diagnostic precision and clinical utility than current thresholds strengthening MASLD screening and clinical trial eligibility, particularly in obese populations.
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.