ArticleGut and liver2026
Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Fibrosis 5 Score and the Risk of Liver-Related Events in the General Population.
Article in Gut and liver, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aims: The metabolic dysfunction-associated fibrosis 5 (MAF-5) tool has been proposed for identifying individuals at high risk of liver fibrosis, but its ability to predict liver-related events (LREs) remains unknown. We aimed to evaluate the ability of MAF-5 to predict LREs and assess whether modifications could enhance its predictive capacity. Methods: A retrospective cohort of 62,625 adults without cancer, organ transplantation, chronic viral hepatitis, or heavy alcohol intake was followed for LREs (hepatocellular carcinoma and/or liver cirrhosis complications). The MAF-5 score was calculated and compared with other non-invasive liver fibrosis biomarkers. We also assessed whether modifying the MAF-5 score could improve LRE prediction. Results: During a median follow-up of 11.2 years, 147 patients developed LREs. The MAF-5 scores were used to stratify participants by LRE risk into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories, with incidence rates of 0.108, 0.576, and 1.520 cases per 1,000 person-years, respectively. Age was identified as an independent risk factor for LREs, and therefore, we developed an age-modified MAF-5 (aMAF-5) score, which showed improved performance (C-index: 0.870 vs 0.818; integrated area under the curve: 0.858 vs 0.784). Within the same MAF-5 category, LRE risk varied according to the aMAF-5 score. The use of "either positive" criteria improved sensitivity (from 0.412 to 0.765) and decreased specificity (from 0.944 to 0.830), while "both positive" criteria improved specificity and reduced sensitivity. Both scores performed well regardless of age, sex, or metabolic syndrome status. Conclusions: The MAF-5 score allows effective stratification of LRE risk. The aMAF-5 score further improves risk stratification. These scores identify individuals at risk of LREs who may benefit from enhanced surveillance.
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.