Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2025 Jan 14;25(1):36.
doi: 10.1007/s10238-024-01553-3.

Comparative application of MAFLD and MASLD diagnostic criteria on NAFLD patients: insights from a single-center cohort

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparative application of MAFLD and MASLD diagnostic criteria on NAFLD patients: insights from a single-center cohort

Maha Elsabaawy et al. Clin Exp Med. .

Abstract

The diagnostic criteria for Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Fatty Liver Disease (MAFLD) and Metabolic Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD) aim to refine the classification of fatty liver diseases previously grouped under Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD). This study evaluates the applicability of the MAFLD and MASLD frameworks in NAFLD patients, exploring their clinical utility in identifying high-risk patients. A total of 369 NAFLD patients were assessed using MAFLD and MASLD diagnostic criteria. Baseline characteristics, metabolic profiles, hepatic fibrosis, and cardiovascular risks were compared across the groups. Among NAFLD patients, 97.55% (n = 359) met MASLD criteria, and 97.01% (n = 357) fulfilled MAFLD criteria. Both frameworks MAFLD and MASLD captured overlapping populations, with MASLD encompassing slightly more cases. No significant differences were observed in metabolic risk factors, fibrosis indices (APRI, FIB-4, NAFLD fibrosis score), or cardiovascular risk (10-year ASCVD score). A small subset of lean NAFLD patients (10 cases) with distinct profiles remained uncategorized by either framework. Pure NAFLD cases (n = 10) were with mild insulin resistance (HOMA-IR: 3.07 ± 0.33) and slightly elevated LDL (102.5 ± 42.87 mg/dL), while fibrosis indices indicated low fibrosis risk. Steatosis indices supported the diagnosis of early-stage NAFLD with preserved liver function. These patients do not meet the criteria for inclusion in the MAFLD or MASLD frameworks, highlighting a gap in the current diagnostic systems. MAFLD and MASLD criteria align closely with NAFLD in capturing patients with metabolic risk with MASLD-enhanced inclusivity. Further refinement is required to address heterogeneity, particularly in lean NAFLD patients. Hypertension prevalence was comparable (17.4% in NAFLD, 18.2% in MAFLD, 17.8% in MASLD; p = 0.960), as was diabetes mellitus (36.7%, 37.8%, and 37.6%, respectively; p = 0.945). Body mass index was also similar across groups, with medians of 33.25, 33.6, and 33.4 kg/m2 (p = 0.731). Non-invasive markers of hepatic fibrosis, including APRI, FIB-4, and NAFLD fibrosis scores, did not differ significantly, with median FIB-4 scores around 1.05 (p = 0.953). Similarly, were the results of hepatic steatosis index and ASCVD score.

Keywords: Cardiovascular risk; Fibrosis; Hepatic steatosis; MAFLD; MASLD; NAFLD.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Ethics approval: “This study was conducted per the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the National Liver Institute, Menoufia University as unique research and not a part of an approved student thesis. Informed consent was obtained from all patients or their legal representatives before enrolment in the study. Consent to participate and publish.: Not applicable.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Classification of various SLD
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Cardio-metabolic risk factors of the studied groups

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Fouad Y, Esmat G, Elwakil R, Zakaria S, Yosry A, Waked I, et al. The Egyptian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of metabolic associated fatty liver disease. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2022;28:3–20. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mary ER, Jeffrey VL, Ratziu V, Sven MF, Arun JS, Kanwal F, Philip NN. A multisociety Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature. Annals Hepatol. 2024;29(1):1–15. - PubMed
    1. Boccatonda A, Andreetto L, D’Ardes D, Cocco G, Rossi I, Vicari S, et al. From NAFLD to MAFLD: definition, pathophysiological basis and cardiovascular implications. Biomedicines. 2023;11(3):883. 10.3390/biomedicines11030883.PMID:36979861;PMCID:PMC10046146. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Portincasa P, Baffy G. Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: evolution of the final terminology. Eur J Intern Med. 2024;124:35–9. 10.1016/j.ejim.2024.04.013. (Epub 2024 Apr 22 PMID: 38653634). - PubMed
    1. Eslam M, Sanyal AJ, George J, Sanyal A, Neuschwander-Tetri B, Tiribelli C, Younossi Z. MAFLD: a consensus-driven proposed nomenclature for metabolic associated fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(7):1999–2014. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources