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
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.16589 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!