Prevalence, risk factors and diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive tests for NAFLD in people with type 1 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Aims The epidemiology of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) is not yet elucidated. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive tests for NAFLD, to investigate the prevalence and severity of NAFLD, and to search for factors contributing to NAFLD in people with T1D. Methods In this prospective cohort study, we consecutively screened 530 adults with T1D from a tertiary care hospital, using ultrasound (US), vibration-controlled transient elastography equipped with liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and controlled attenuation parameter, and the fatty liver index. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) was performed in a representative subgroup of 132 individuals to validate the diagnostic accuracy of the non-invasive tests. Results Based on MRS as reference standard, US identified individuals with NAFLD with an AUROC of 0.98 (95% CI 0.95–1.00, sensitivity: 1.00, specificity: 0.96). The controlled attenuation parameter was also accurate with an AUROC of 0.85 (95% CI 0.77–0.93). Youden cut-off was ≥270 dB/m (sensitivity: 0.90, specificity: 0.74). The fatty liver index yielded a similar AUROC of 0.83 (95% CI 0.74–0.91), but the conventional cut-off used to rule in (≥60) had low sensitivity and specificity (0.62, 0.78). The prevalence of NAFLD in the overall cohort was 16.2% based on US. Metabolic syndrome was associated with NAFLD (OR: 2.35 [1.08–5.12], p = 0.031). The overall prevalence of LSM ≥8.0 kPa indicating significant fibrosis was 3.8%, but reached 13.2% in people with NAFLD. Conclusions NAFLD prevalence in individuals with T1D is 16.2%, with approximately one in 10 featuring elevated LSM. US-based screening could be considered in people with T1D and metabolic syndrome. Impact and Implications We aimed to report on the prevalence, disease severity, and risk factors of NAFLD in type 1 diabetes (T1D), while also tackling which non-invasive test for NAFLD is the most accurate. We found that ultrasound is the best test to diagnose NAFLD. NAFLD prevalence is 16.2%, and is associated with metabolic syndrome and BMI. Elevated liver stiffness indicating fibrosis is overall not prevalent in people with T1D (3.8%), but it reaches 13.2% in those with T1D and NAFLD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".