A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Performance of MAST, FAST, and MEFIB in predicting metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to evaluate three noninvasive models for diagnosing metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) among patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).
  • Among the models (MAST, FAST, and MEFIB), MAST and FAST showed comparable diagnostic accuracy, outperforming MEFIB significantly, particularly in identifying patients with "at-risk" MASH.
  • The results suggest using MAST and FAST as preferred noninvasive methods due to their better performance and lower cutoff values for diagnosing MASH and "at-risk" MASH.

Article Abstract

Background And Aim: To identify individuals with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) or "at-risk" MASH among patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), three noninvasive models are available with satisfactory efficiency, which include magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]- AST (MAST), FibroScan-AST (FAST score), and magnetic resonance elastography [MRE] plus FIB-4 (MEFIB). We aimed to evaluate the most accurate approach for diagnosing MASH or "at-risk" MASH.

Methods: We included 108 biopsy-proven MASLD patients who underwent simultaneous assessment of MRE, MRI proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF), and FibroScan scans. Compared with the histological diagnosis, we analyzed the AUC of each model and assessed the accuracy.

Results: Our study cohort consisted of 64.8% of MASH and 25.9% of "at-risk" MASH. When analyzing the performance of each model for the diagnostic accuracy of MASH, we found that the AUC [95% CI] of MAST was comparable to FAST (0.803 [0.719-0.886] vs 0.799 [0.707-0.891], P = 0.930) and better than MEFIB (0.671 [0.571-0.772], P = 0.005). Similar findings were observed in the "at-risk" MASH patients. The AUCs [95% CI] for MAST, FAST, and MEFIB were 0.810 [0.719-0.900], 0.782 [0.689-0.874], and 0.729 [0.619-0.838], respectively. The models of MAST and FAST had comparable AUCs (P = 0.347), which were statistically significantly higher than that of MEFIB (P = 0.041). Additionally, the cutoffs for diagnosis of MASH were lower than "at-risk" MASH.

Conclusion: MAST and FAST performed better than MEFIB in diagnosing "at-risk" MASH and MASH using lower cutoff values. Our findings provided evidence for selecting the most accurate noninvasive model to identify patients with MASH or at-risk MASH.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jgh.16589DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

mast fast
16
"at-risk" mash
16
metabolic dysfunction-associated
12
mash
12
fast mefib
8
dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis
8
mash "at-risk"
8
mash patients
8
magnetic resonance
8
[95% ci]
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!