Liver Fibrosis in Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and Progression to Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the systematic review is to assess the prevalence and risk factors of liver fibrosis in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) and to discuss the role of liver fibrosis in the progression to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We performed a structured search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus up to 3 March 2023 to identify observational studies reporting liver fibrosis in patients with NAFLD and IBD. Quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) score. A total of 23 studies met our inclusion criteria, including 629,781 patients. A total of 10 cross-sectional, 3 case-control, and 10 cohort studies were included. Fourteen studies had a NOS score ≥ 7 points. NAFLD was diagnosed in 2162/6332 (34.1%) IBD participants. However, NAFLD diagnosis was established in 924/2962 (31.2%) healthy individuals without IBD. Advanced liver fibrosis was found in 116 (11.6%) of 992 IBD patients with NAFLD. Most studies found an association between NAFLD and classic cardiovascular risk factors such as older age, male sex, higher BMI, diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidemia. In addition, metabolic syndrome features were also associated with an increased risk of significant and advanced liver fibrosis. Although no strong association between NAFLD and IBD therapy was reported, some studies associated NAFLD with IBD diagnosis, Crohn's Disease, a complicated course of IBD, disease activity, and IBD duration. Advanced liver fibrosis was also associated with Crohn's disease in several studies. In conclusion, NAFLD and advanced liver fibrosis are prevalent and clinically relevant extraintestinal manifestations, so its diagnosis and potential progression to HCC should be carefully considered in daily clinical practice.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".