ArticleWorld journal of hepatology2026
Blood markers
Article in World journal of hepatology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLiver biopsy, once the gold standard for evaluating liver fibrosis and steatosis, has been largely replaced in routine clinical practice by non-invasive tools like Fibroscan
aimTo investigate the diagnostic accuracy and correlation of blood-based parameters fibrosis 4 (FIB-4) score, aspartate transaminase to platelet ratio index (APRI), neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and neutrophil percentage-to-albumin ratio (NPAR) with LSM and CAP values in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) patients.
methodsIn a cross-sectional study of 300 MASLD patients we compared FIB-4, APRI, NLR, PLR, and NPAR with LSM and CAP values. Patients were categorized based on LSM into less fibro-progressed (F0-F2) and advanced fibro-progressed (F3-F4) groups, and by CAP into S1, S2 and S3 categories. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the markers were analyzed, and receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted.
resultsFIB-4 [
conclusionFIB-4 and APRI which are robust non-invasive markers for fibrosis, correlates well with LSM as well. NPAR shows potential for steatosis assessment using CAP, warranting further validation. Negative correlation of PLR might suggest its role in liver stiffness evaluation. These markers both conventional and novel, can be used for repeated measurements during follow-up in primary care settings.
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.