ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2026
Social determinants disadvantage score and liver health in the All of Us Research Program.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Social determinants of health (SDOH) are crucial in shaping liver health outcomes, yet comprehensive assessments that span key SDOH domains are lacking. To address this knowledge gap, we developed a Social Determinants Disadvantage Score (SDDS) and examined its association with major adverse liver conditions. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 117,783 participants from the All of Us Research Program. The SDDS was systematically constructed using validated questionnaires covering economic stability, education, healthcare access and quality, neighborhood and built environment, and social and community context. Each question was scored on a 0 (most advantage) to 1 (most disadvantage) scale. Total SDDS was calculated as the mean of all questions, ranging from 0 to 1. We used logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations of SDDS with total and individual adverse liver conditions, including steatotic liver disease (SLD), metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), alcoholic liver disease (ALD), cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV), chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV), and hepatic failure based on the Electronic Health Record. Higher SDDS was associated with a higher risk of adverse liver conditions. The highest SDDS quintile (most disadvantaged) compared to the lowest SDDS quintile had an OR = 1.67 (95% CI: 1.55-1.79) for total adverse liver condition risk after adjusting for age, sex, race, and other covariates. Similar associations were observed for individual liver conditions. Per 10% higher SDDS, the adjusted OR (95% CI) was 1.25 (1.22-1.29) for SLD, 1.27 (1.19-1.35) for MASH, 1.15 (0.99-1.34) for ALD, 1.31 (1.25-1.39) for cirrhosis, 1.35 (1.15-1.59) for HCC, 1.24 (1.14-1.35) for HBV infection, 1.40 (1.33-1.48) for HCV infection, and 1.35 (1.21-1.50) for hepatic failure. Consistent associations were found for disadvantages in individual SDOH domains, score excluding missingness, and score with selected factors. The SDDS provides a comprehensive, validated tool for assessing SDOH and their associations with liver health. Our findings highlight significant associations between social disadvantage and the prevalence of adverse liver conditions, emphasizing the need for future longitudinal studies to inform targeted interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.