Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Usefulness of Epicardial Fat Thickness as a Non-Invasive Marker of the Presence and Severity of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between epicardial fat thickness (EFT) and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and was based on a registered protocol (CRD 4201809 5493). We searched Medline and Embase until December 2021 for studies reporting on the association between EFT and NAFLD. Qualitative reviews, meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed to explore this association. Effect sizes are reported as standardized mean differences. We included 12 studies, comprising 3610 individuals. EFT was evaluated with trans-thoracic echocardiography in nine studies, two studies using cardiac computed tomography and one study using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The presence of NAFLD was evaluated using transabdominal liver ultrasound in nine studies. Other studies used histology, magnetic resonance spectroscopy and MRI-derived proton density fat fraction. Liver biopsy was performed to assess the severity of NAFLD in four studies. The random-effects meta-analysis indicated that, as compared to control patients with lean livers, patients with NAFLD displayed significantly higher EFT (standardized mean difference 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.47−0.75, p < 0.0001, I2 = 72%). EFT was further significantly higher in patients with severe liver steatosis versus patients with mild−moderate liver steatosis (standardized mean difference 1.21 95% confidence interval: 0.26−2.16, p < 0.001, I2 S = 96%). Through the meta-regression analysis, we found that patients with increasingly higher blood levels of aspartate aminotransferase displayed an increasingly higher depth of association. The current meta-analysis suggests that EFT may represent a useful surrogate for assessing the presence and severity of NAFLD in a non-invasive manner.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".