Journal of Obesity & Metabolic Syndrome

Search

Article

J Obes Metab Syndr 2024; 33(3): 222-228

Published online September 30, 2024 https://doi.org/10.7570/jomes23063

Copyright © Korean Society for the Study of Obesity.

Alcoholic Liver Disease/Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Index for Classification of Patients with Steatotic Liver Disease

Akash Roy1, Arka De2, Anand V. Kulkarni3, Surabhi Jajodia4, Usha Goenka4, Awanish Tewari1, Nikhil Sonthalia1, Mahesh K. Goenka1,*

1Institute of Gastrosciences and Liver Transplantation, Apollo Multispeciality Hospitals, Kolkata; 2Department of Hepatology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh; 3Department of Hepatology, Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad; 4Department of Radiology and Imaging, Apollo Multispeciality Hospitals, Kolkata, India

Correspondence to:
Mahesh K. Goenka
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1700-7543
Department of Gastroenterology, Institute of Gastrosciences and Liver Transplantation, Apollo Multispeciality Hospitals, Kolkata, 54 Canal Circular Road, Kolkata, 700054, West Bengal, India
Tel: +91-9830040599
E-mail: mkgkolkata@gmail.com

Received: October 26, 2023; Reviewed : December 3, 2023; Accepted: May 29, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Background: Steatotic liver disease (SLD) encompasses metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and alcohol-associated liver disease (AALD) at extremes as well as an overlap group termed MASLD with increased alcohol intake (MetALD). The Alcoholic Liver Disease/Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Index (ANI) was proposed to differentiate ALD from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). We analysed the performance of the ANI in differentiating within the SLD spectrum.
Methods: In a cross-sectional study at a tertiary care center, 202 adults (>18 years) who were prospectively diagnosed with SLD defined by magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction >6.4% were enrolled. Alcohol consumption (AC) was recorded according to thresholds for significant AC: 140–350 g/week (or 20–50 g/day) for females and 210–420 g/week (or 30–60 g/day) for males. The ANI was calculated, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was generated.
Results: Of 202 patients (47 years [interquartile range, IQR, 38 to 55], 23.75% females, 77% obese, 42.1% with diabetes, 38.1% hypertensive, 28.7% statin use), 40.5% were ever-alcohol consumers; 120 (59%), 50 (24.7%), and 32 (15.8%) were MASLD (ANI, –3.7 [IQR, –7 to –1.6]; MetALD, – 1.45 [IQR, –2.4 to 0.28]; and AALD, 0.71 [IQR, –1.3 to 4.8], respectively; P<0.05 for all). The AUROC of the ANI for MASLD and AALD was 0.79 (IQR, 0.72 to 0.84; cut-off <–3.5) and 0.80 (IQR, 0.74 to 0.86; cut-off >–1.49), respectively. The ANI outperformed aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase (AST/ALT) ratio (AUROC=0.75 [IQR, 0.69 to 0.81]) and gamma glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) (AUROC=0.74 [IQR, 0.67 to 0.80]). Addition of GGT did not improve model performance (AUCdiff=0.004; P=0.33).
Conclusion: AC is common in MASLD. The ANI distinguishes MASLD and AALD, with individual cut-offs within the intermediate zone indicating MetALD. ANI also outperforms AST/ALT ratio or GGT.

Keywords: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, Liver steatosis, Alcoholic fatty liver

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) was originally conceived as a binary entity and was specifically defined as >5% fat in hepatocytes among individuals who drink little or no alcohol (defined as <20 g/day for female and <30 g/day for male).1 However, given the alarming rise in NAFLD prevalence as well as global alcohol consumption (AC), such a binary definition is now considered flawed, and NAFLD and AC are understood to be more intertwined.2-4 Indeed, it is now recognized that there are overlapping biological processes that may contribute to both NAFLD and alcohol-related liver disease. Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease was proposed based solely on metabolic criteria without the prerequisite to exclude patients with alcohol intake or other chronic liver diseases.5 However, this all-encompassing definition was met with skepticism, which led to reconsideration of the nomenclature based on a multi-society consensus, and the term “steatotic liver disease (SLD)” was introduced.6 SLD is a hierarchical term that further subdivides into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and alcohol-associated liver disease (AALD) at two extremes, and another entity that overlaps with MASLD and AALD termed as MASLD with increased alcohol intake (MetALD), which includes people with MASLD and AC between 20 and 60 g/day.6 The importance of differentiating AALD from MASLD lies in its multiple implications. First, the entities have contrasting disease drivers, which alters the natural history of fibrosis progression, cirrhosis development, incident decompensation, and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma.1,4 Furthermore, although lifestyle modifications, including improvement in metabolic profile in MASLD and alcohol cessation in AALD, are cornerstones of disease management, it is first necessary to establish primary drivers to determine the best pharmacotherapy, especially considering the evolving therapeutic options for MASLD.1,6

Validated objective tools to determine the relative contribution of alcohol or metabolic risk factors in patients with features of overlap are lacking, and clinicians must rely heavily on self-reported alcohol intake.6 The Alcoholic Liver Disease/Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Index (ANI) was proposed to differentiate alcoholic liver disease (ALD) from NAFLD, wherein scores greater than zero incrementally favor ALD and scores less than zero incrementally favor NAFLD.7 The ANI score was shown to have excellent diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve [AUC]=0.97) in the derivation cohort and subsequently replicated cohorts.8 However, in its original description and subsequent validation, it was used primarily as a binary discriminant. Given this context, we aimed to identify subtypes of SLD and assess the performance of the ANI as a non-invasive test point-of-care score in differentiating SLD subtypes.

Adult patients (>18 years) presenting to the outpatient liver clinic for evaluation at a tertiary care center were screened for hepatic steatosis using magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF; 3 Tesla Phillips mDixon Quant software). MRI-PDFF values >6.4% were indicative of significant steatosis.9 All patients underwent a standardized clinical evaluation in the form of history and anthropometric examination, which included age, sex, height, weight, body mass index (BMI). Asia-Pacific cut-offs for BMI were used: normal 18–22.9 kg/m2, overweight 23–24.9 kg/m2, and obese ≥25 kg/m2.10

Patients were evaluated for features of metabolic syndrome, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, high-density lipoprotein (HDL), and triglyceride levels. A detailed work-up was performed to rule out alternate causes of liver disease including chronic viral hepatitis, autoimmune hepatitis, and Wilson’s disease. MASLD, MetALD, and AALD were defined according to a multi-society consensus document.6 The cardiometabolic criterion for defining MASLD was at least one of the five following traits: (1) BMI≥23 kg/m2 (as per Asian cut-offs); (2) fasting blood glucose ≥100 mg/dL, glycosylated hemoglobin ≥5.7%, or treatment for diabetes mellitus; (3) blood pressure >135/80 mmHg or treatment for hypertension; (4) plasma triglycerides >150 mg/dL or treatment with lipid-lowering drugs; and (5) plasma HDL <40 mg/dL for males or <50 mg/dL for females or treatment with lipid-lowering drugs.

Self-reported AC history was collected by two physicians and quantified in grams/day or per week as applicable. Significant AC was defined as consuming more than 50 g/day in females and more than 60 g/day in males, while moderate AC was defined as consuming one drink (20 to 50 g) or less in a day for females and two drinks (30 to 60 g) or less in a day for males. AC thresholds for the intermediate group with MetALD were 140 to 350 g/week (or 20 to 50 g/day) for females and 210 to 420 g/week (or 30 to 60 g/day) for males.6,11 Those consuming alcohol amounts less than the threshold were categorized as MASLD and those greater than as AALD. Moderate AC was defined as alcohol intake up to 350 or 50 g/day for females and up to 420 or 60 g/day for males.

The ANI was calculated using an online available calculator (https://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-professionals/transplant-medicine/calculators/the-alcoholic-liver-disease-nonalcoholic-fatty-liver-disease-index-ani/itt-20434726). The score constitutes simple components of age, mean corpuscular volume, alanine transaminase (ALT), aspartate transaminase (AST), BMI, and gender. From these variables, an ANI is generated along with a percent probability of ALD.

Patients with established cirrhosis, alcoholic hepatitis, hepatocellular carcinoma or other malignancies, known hematological disorders, end-stage renal disease, advanced heart failure, pregnancy, and those with contraindications or technical limitations to MRI were excluded. This study was approved by the appropriate Institutional Review Board of Apollo Multispeciality Hospitals (IEC/BR/2023/10), and written informed consent was obtained from each patient prior to study inclusion. The study protocol conformed with the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki.

Statistical analyses

According to the original study by Dunn et al.7, ANI validation sensitivity and specificity were 93.5% and 92%, respectively; thus, given alpha=0.05 and a marginal error rate of 0.05, the minimum sample size required was n=190. Descriptive parameters were reported as number (%), mean±standard deviation, or median (interquartile range [IQR]). Categorical variables were compared using Pearson’s χ2 test. Continuous data comparison between two groups was performed using the Mann-Whitney U-test, and comparisons of more than two groups used the analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Kruskal-Wallis test as per the normality of the data. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) with bootstrapped 95% confidence interval (CI) was generated for the ANI of MASLD and ALD. A P-value <0.05 was considered significant. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS version 26.0 (IBM Co.), MedCalc 20.0 (MedCalc), and GraphPad Prism software (GraphPad Software Inc.).

A total of 202 patients satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included. Of these, 77.2% were obese (BMI=27.5 kg/m2 [IQR, 25.2 to 30.4]), while 42.1% and 38% had diabetes and hypertension, respectively, and 40.5% of the SLD cohort reported AC. The baseline characteristics of the SLD patients are shown in Table 1.

Of 202 patients, 120 (59%) satisfied the definition for MASLD, while 50 (24.7%) and 32 (15.8%) satisfied the definition for MetALD and ALD, respectively. Table 2 shows differences in individual parameters between MASLD, MetALD, and AALD. Hemoglobin, transaminase levels, and gamma glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) were significantly different between the groups. However, cardiometabolic risk factors were similar across the groups. The ANI was higher in the AALD group (0.71 [IQR, –1.3 to 4.8]) in comparison with the MetALD (–1.45 [IQR, –2.4 to 0.28]) and MASLD (–3.7 [IQR, –7 to –1.6]) groups. Also, ANI for the MetALD group was higher than that of the MASLD group (Fig. 1). Liver fat content as measured by MRI-PDFF was similar across the groups (Supplementary Fig. 1).

The diagnostic AUROC for the ANI for MASLD was 0.79 (IQR, 0.72 to 0.84) with a sensitivity of 54.2% and specificity of 92.6% (cut-off <–3.5). The ANI for AALD was highest, with an AUROC of 0.80 (IQR, 0.74 to 0.86), sensitivity 78.1%, and specificity 71.1% at a cut-off point of >–1.49 (Fig. 2). As, AST/ALT ratio, and GGT have also been used as predictors of AALD. We compared the AUROCs of ANI, GGT, and AST/ALT, and ANI (0.80 [IQR, 0.74 to 0.86]) showed better performance compared with AST/ALT (0.75 [IQR, 0.69 to 0.81]) and GGT (0.74 [IQR, 0.67 to 0.80]) (Fig. 3). As GGT level was also significantly different between the groups, the ANI with the addition of GGT was also evaluated but was not improved (AUCdiff=0.004 [IQR, –0.004 to 0.01]; P=0.33) (Supplementary Fig. 2). The ANI was originally conceived as a binary score, with those greater than zero incrementally favoring AALD. In our cohort, 15 patients (46.8%) with AALD had ANI <0, which further suggested the impact of metabolic factors even in patients with AALD. Importantly, 13 (86.6%) of these patients were obese, and seven (46.6%) were diabetic. In contrast, among patients with AALD and ANI >0, eight (47%) were obese and 10 (58.8%) were diabetic (P=0.02 for obesity, P=0.49 for diabetes).

SLD was introduced as an overarching term to encompass all entities leading to hepatic steatosis. However, metabolic risk factors or alcohol are the most common causes of steatosis, and the new terminologies of MASLD, MetALD, and AALD help understand the disease as a spectrum and not binaries.12 While liver biopsy remains the gold standard for differentiating these entities, it has limitations of invasiveness and overlapping histological features between NAFLD and ALD.13,14 There remains a need for objective non-invasive markers for differentiation, for which the ANI has been useful. We analysed a cohort of patients with SLD across the MASLD–MetALD–AALD spectrum to assess the performance of the ANI in distinguishing the entities.

The ANI score was originally devised to differentiate between patients with ALD and NAFLD based on a biopsy based cohort.7 In the original description, ANI had a c-statistic of 0.989 in the derivation cohort.7 In the original description, the score was predominantly used as a binary cut-off that incrementally favored a diagnosis of ALD when ANI >0 and of NAFLD when ANI <0.7 Subsequently, the index was tested in a Chinese cohort of 139 patients, showing a sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC for ALD of 87.1%, 92.5%, and 0.934 (95% CI, 0.879 to 0.969), respectively, at a cut-off score of –0.22.8 The index was also tested in a Serbian cohort of 135 patients using a cut-off of <–0.66 to identify patients with NAFLD and yielded 96.7% specificity and 84.1% sensitivity.15

We conducted the first study of the ANI in a cohort of patients with SLD as defined by MRI-PDFF, which has been considered one of the most accurate measures of fat assessment, and assessed its performance for the MASLD, MetALD, and AALD spectrum.16 The ANI differed across the spectrum with significantly different scores between AALD, MetALD, and MASLD. The score showed excellent specificity and sensitivity for MASLD and MetALD, respectively. Additionally, we identified separate cut-offs, <–3.5 and >–1.49, for better identification of MASLD and AALD, respectively, with those falling between to be representative of MetALD. However, the diagnostic performance of the index in our cohort was inferior to previous findings (0.79 and 0.80 for MASLD and AALD, respectively). In the original study by Dunn et al.7, the c-statistic of the ANI score was 0.767 in one of the validation cohorts, indicating performance heterogeneity for different cohorts.

Despite performing inferior to original derivation studies, with a diagnostic AUC >0.8, the ANI appears to be a good additional tool based upon simple parameters to identify AC. However, while the ANI identifies significant and no-AC at the two extremes, better tools are needed in the overlap zone. Other biomarkers of AC including ethyl glucuronide, carbohydrate-deficient transferrin, and phosphatidyl ethanol may be of use in this setting, although such tools are not available for commercial use.17

A previous study showed that addition of GGT to the ANI further increased the AUC from 0.93 to 0.96.8 However, we failed to demonstrate any performance improvement with the addition of GGT. While GGT has often been labelled as a marker of ALD, a recent study form Hossain et al.18 indicated GGT to be a significant determinant of NAFLD after adjusting for the effects of glycaemic control and weight. Hence, while GGT may be elevated solely in AALD cohorts, in an amalgamation of a mixed cohort of MASLD an AALD, GGT alone loses its diagnostic utility.

Our study has several strengths, being the first to use the ANI in an SLD cohort. Additionally, the cohort was specifically defined using MRI-PDFF as an entry point and was stratified by AC with prospectively documented history. We suggest different cut-offs for excluding MASLD and AALD, with an intermediate zone indicating MetALD.

Our study also has certain limitations of which the key is the lack of liver biopsy, although there remain challenges in liver biopsy itself in differentiating between these entities.13 The history of alcohol intake was self-reported, and may be errors of underreporting, which remains a universal challenge and a key area for future research.6 Although our overall cohort was large, the number of subjects with AALD was small, which may be one of the reasons for a lower diagnostic performance in comparison to previous studies. However, in a real-life setting in patients with SLD, this is often the presentation. Last, an interesting aspect and limitation that emerges is the entire cohort having some degree of “metabolic dysfunction” as per the current MASLD criteria, which may be too liberal considering even one of the five risk factors to be enough for diagnosing metabolic dysfunction. A similar observation has recently been made by Anirvan et al.19, which calls for close analysis of the defining criteria especially in the face of the related global public health challenge.20

The ANI differs significantly among MASLD, MetALD, and AALD and can perform well in identifying MASLD and AALD. Additional scoring systems and biomarkers are required to further stratify individual contributions of alcohol or metabolic risk factors in the MetALD group.

Study concept and design: AR and MKG; acquisition of data: AR, AT, and NS; analysis and interpretation of data: AR and AVK; drafting of the manuscript: AR; critical revision of the manuscript: AD, AVK, and MKG; statistical analysis: AR and AD; administrative, technical, or material support: SJ and UG; and study supervision: AT, NS, and MKG.

Fig. 1. Differences in Alcoholic Liver Disease/Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Index (ANI) across the steatotic liver disease (SLD) spectrum. MASLD, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease; MetALD, MASLD with increased alcohol intake; AALD, alcohol-associated liver disease.
Fig. 2. Diagnostic area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for Alcoholic Liver Disease/Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Index (ANI) of (A) metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and (B) alcohol-associated liver disease. AUC, area under the curve.
Fig. 3. Comparison of diagnostic area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for Alcoholic Liver Disease/Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Index (ANI) score, aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase (AST/ALT), and gamma glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) for predicting alcohol-associated liver disease. AUC, area under the curve; IQR, interquartile range.

Baseline characteristics of patients with steatotic liver disease

Parameter Value
Age (yr) 47 (38 to 55)
Female sex 48 (23.7)
BMI (kg/m2) 27.5 (25.2 to 30.4)
Overweight (BMI 23–25 kg/m2) 20 (9.9)
Obese (BMI > 25 kg/m2) 156 (77.2)
Diabetes 85 (42.1)
Hypertension 77 (38.1)
Statin use 58 (28.7)
Alcohol consumption
Ever-alcohol consumption 82 (40.5)
Moderate alcohol consumption 50 (24.7)
Significant alcohol consumption 32 (15.8)
Hemoglobin (g/dL) 13 (11.9 to 14.2)
Mean corpuscular volume (fL) 85 (82 to 90)
Platelet count (× 103/mm3) 191 (156 to 251.7)
Alanine transaminase (U/L) 52 (34 to 84)
Aspartate transaminase (U/L) 41 (29 to 61)
Gamma glutamyl transpeptidase (U/L) 67.5 (39 to 98)
Fasting plasma glucose (mg/dL) 98.5 (90 to 112)
HbA1c (%) 5.9 (5.4 to 6.6)
Creatinine (mg/dL) 0.9 (0.7 to 1.0)
Triglycerides (mg/dL) 147.5 (112 to 212)
High-density lipoprotein (mg/dL) 41 (35 to 47)
ANI –2.4 (–5.4 to –0.5)
MRI-PDFF (%) 12.9 (9.1 to 19.2)
Steatotic liver disease 202 (100)
MASLD 120 (59.4)
MetALD 50 (24.7)
AALD 32 (15.8)

Values are presented as median (interquartile range) or number (%).

BMI, body mass index; HbA1c, glycosylated hemoglobin; ANI, Alcoholic Liver Disease/Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Index; MRI-PDFF, magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction; MASLD, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease; MetALD, MASLD with increased alcohol intake; AALD, alcohol-associated liver disease.

Characteristics according to subgroup of steatotic liver disease

Parameter MASLD (n = 120) MetALD (n = 50) AALD (n = 32) P
Age (yr) 46.0 (39.5 to 55.0) 47.5 (33 to 55) 49 (39.0 to 54.5) > 0.05
Hemoglobin (g/dL) 12.8 (11.5 to 14.0) 13.5 (12.1 to 14.5) 14 (12.4 to 14.8) 0.01
Mean corpuscular volume (fL) 82 (80.0 to 87.5) 88 (84 to 90) 94.5 (90 to 100) 0.01
Platelet count (× 103/mm3) 195 (161.5 to 262.0) 192 (158.5 to 238.0) 172 (149.7 to 242.0) > 0.05
BMI (kg/m2) 27.6 (25.9 to 31.0) 26.9 (24.9 to 29.0) 27.5 (24.0 to 29.5) > 0.05
Obesity 98 (81.6) 37 (74.0) 21 (65.6) > 0.05
Diabetes mellitus 52 (43.3) 16 (32.0) 17 (53.1) > 0.05
Hypertension 43 (35.8) 18 (36.0) 16 (50.0) > 0.05
Statin use 38 (31.6) 12 (20.0) 8 (25.0) > 0.05
ALT (U/L) 48.5 (35 to 79) 68 (37 to 109) 44 (28.5 to 67.0) 0.03
AST (U/L) 37.5 (28 to 52) 46.5 (30 to 76) 45 (37.5 to 75.5) 0.02
GGT (U/L) 58 (36 to 80) 80 (46 to 103) 100 (76 to 119) < 0.01
Triglycerides (mg/dL) 149 (111.5 to 218.5) 146.5 (120 to 210) 137 (105.0 to 193.5) > 0.05
High-density lipoprotein (mg/dL) 41 (34 to 47) 41 (38 to 46) 40 (34.5 to 44.5) > 0.05
Fasting plasma glucose (mg/dL) 98 (86 to 114) 98.5 (90 to 107) 106 (97.5 to 117.0) > 0.05
HbA1c (%) 5.9 (5.4 to 6.8) 5.9 (5.3 to 6.4) 6 (5.6 to 6.7) > 0.05
Creatinine (mg/dL) 0.9 (0.8 to 1.0) 0.9 (0.7 to 1.0) 0.8 (0.7 to 1.0) > 0.05
ANI –3.7 (–7.0 to –1.6) –1.4 (–2.4 to 0.3) 0.7 (–1.3 to 4.8) < 0.01
PDFF liver fat content (%) 12.5 (9.1 to 21.0) 13.6 (9.5 to 19.3) 12.1 (7.5 to 16.0) > 0.05

Values are presented as median (interquartile range) or number (%).

MASLD, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease; MetALD, MASLD with increased alcohol intake; AALD, alcohol-associated liver disease; BMI, body mass index; ALT, alanine transaminase; AST, aspartate transaminase; GGT, gamma glutamyl transpeptidase; HbA1c, glycosylated hemoglobin; ANI, Alcoholic Liver Disease/Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Index; PDFF, proton density fat fraction.

  1. Rinella ME, Neuschwander-Tetri BA, Siddiqui MS, Abdelmalek MF, Caldwell S, Barb D, et al. AASLD practice guidance on the clinical assessment and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 2023;77:1797-835.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  2. Lazarus JV, Mark HE, Anstee QM, Arab JP, Batterham RL, Castera L, et al. Advancing the global public health agenda for NAFLD: a consensus statement. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;19:60-78.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Park SH, Kim DJ. Global and regional impacts of alcohol use on public health: emphasis on alcohol policies. Clin Mol Hepatol 2020;26:652-61.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  4. Idalsoaga F, Kulkarni AV, Mousa OY, Arrese M, Arab JP. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and alcohol-related liver disease: two intertwined entities. Front Med (Lausanne) 2020;7:448.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  5. Eslam M, Sanyal AJ, George J; International Consensus Panel. MAFLD: a consensus-driven proposed nomenclature for metabolic associated fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology 2020;158:1999-2014.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Rinella ME, Lazarus JV, Ratziu V, Francque SM, Sanyal AJ, Kanwal F, et al. A multisociety Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature. J Hepatol 2023;79:1542-56.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Dunn W, Angulo P, Sanderson S, Jamil LH, Stadheim L, Rosen C, et al. Utility of a new model to diagnose an alcohol basis for steatohepatitis. Gastroenterology 2006;131:1057-63.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  8. Wang J, Li P, Jiang Z, Yang Q, Mi Y, Liu Y, et al. Diagnostic value of alcoholic liver disease (ALD)/nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) index combined with γ-glutamyl transferase in differentiating ALD and NAFLD. Korean J Intern Med 2016;31:479-87.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  9. Tang A, Desai A, Hamilton G, Wolfson T, Gamst A, Lam J, et al. Accuracy of MR imaging-estimated proton density fat fraction for classification of dichotomized histologic steatosis grades in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Radiology 2015;274:416-25.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  10. Pandit K, Goswami S, Ghosh S, Mukhopadhyay P, Chowdhury S. Metabolic syndrome in South Asians. Indian J Endocrinol Metab 2012;16:44-55.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  11. Breslow RA, Mukamal KJ. Measuring the burden: current and future research trends: results from the NIAAA Expert Panel on Alcohol and Chronic Disease Epidemiology. Alcohol Res 2013;35:250-9.
    Pubmed KoreaMed
  12. Kulkarni AV, Sarin SK. The bidirectional impacts of alcohol consumption and MAFLD for progressive fatty liver disease. Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab 2023;14:20420188231178370.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  13. Sakhuja P. Pathology of alcoholic liver disease, can it be differentiated from nonalcoholic steatohepatitis? World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:16474-9.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  14. Malnick SD, Alin P, Somin M, Neuman MG. Fatty liver disease-alcoholic and non-alcoholic: similar but different. Int J Mol Sci 2022;23:16226.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Cerović I, Mladenović D, Ješić R, Naumović T, Branković M, Vučević D, et al. Alcoholic liver disease/nonalcoholic fatty liver disease index: distinguishing alcoholic from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;25:899-904.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Kim M, Kang BK, Jun DW. Comparison of conventional sonographic signs and magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction for assessment of hepatic steatosis. Sci Rep 2018;8:7759.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  17. Jastrzębska I, Zwolak A, Szczyrek M, Wawryniuk A, Skrzydło-Radomańska B, Daniluk J. Biomarkers of alcohol misuse: recent advances and future prospects. Prz Gastroenterol 2016;11:78-89.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  18. Hossain IA, Rahman Shah MM, Rahman MK, Ali L. Gamma glutamyl transferase is an independent determinant for the association of insulin resistance with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in Bangladeshi adults: association of GGT and HOMA-IR with NAFLD. Diabetes Metab Syndr 2016;10(1 Suppl 1):S25-9.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Anirvan P, Khatua CR, Panigrahi MK, Singh SP. Definition of metabolic dysfunction: shifting goalposts. J Clin Exp Hepatol 2024;14:101301.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  20. Chan WK, Chuah KH, Rajaram RB, Lim LL, Ratnasingam J, Vethakkan SR. Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD): a state-of-the-art review. J Obes Metab Syndr 2023;32:197-213.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef