The Effects of Modest Alcohol Consumption on Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: There is no consensus regarding modest alcohol consumption in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) due to conflicting results. The aim of this meta-analysis was to examine the effects of modest alcohol consumption on histological severity, histological course, hepatocellular carcinoma, and long-term clinical outcomes in NAFLD patients. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to October 2020 for studies evaluating the effects of modest alcohol consumption among patients with NAFLD. A random-effects meta-analysis using pooled odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) was calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI). Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Fourteen cross-sectional or cohort studies with aggregate data on 14,435 patients were included in the analysis. Modest alcohol consumption resulted in lower risks for steatohepatitis (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.45–0.78; I 2 = 12%) and advanced fibrosis (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36–0.95; I 2 = 75%). Histological follow-up data showed that modest alcohol use was associated significantly with less steatohepatitis resolution but not with fibrosis progression. The HR for developing hepatocellular carcinoma was 3.77 (95% CI 1.75–8.15; I 2 = 0%). NAFLD patients with modest alcohol intake had a lower mortality risk than lifelong abstainers (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.75–0.95; I 2 = 64%). Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that medical advice for modest alcohol drinking should be made cautiously in caring for an individual patient based on the clinical context. Practically, patients with steatohepatitis or advanced fibrosis should avoid alcohol use, whereas patients with low fibrosis risk may be allowed for modest and safe drinking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".