Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease increases the risk of cardiovascular disease in young adults and children: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims It is uncertain if there is a link between non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and cardiovascular diseases (CVD) in young adults and children. To evaluate the potential link between these two conditions, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Methods A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science and Embase in order to locate all relevant cohort studies published until August 2023. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted using the generic inverse variance method, with additional subgroup and sensitivity analyses. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was employed to evaluate the methodological quality. Results Four cohort studies (eleven datasets) involving 10,668,189 participants were included in this meta-analysis. This meta-analysis demonstrated that NAFLD increases the risk of CVD in young adults and children (HR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.46–1.82, P < 0.00001). Further subgroup analyses showed that individuals with NAFLD were at a heightened risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) (HR = 3.10, 95% CI: 2.01–4.77, P < 0.00001), myocardial infarction (MI) (HR = 1.69, 95% CI: 1.61–1.78, P < 0.00001), atrial fibrillation (AF) (HR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.12–3.57, P = 0.02), congestive heart failure (CHF) (HR = 3.89, 95% CI: 1.20–12.61, P = 0.02), and stroke (HR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.39–1.55, P < 0.00001). The results of subgroup analyses based on the study location, NAFLD definition, and follow-up time also showed consistency with the overall results. Sensitivity analyses showed that our results were robust. All of the included studies were judged to be of medium to high quality. Conclusion Current evidence reveals that NAFLD is linked to an increased risk of major CVD (including CHD, MI, AF, CHF and stroke) in young adults and children. Further research is needed to strengthen this association and provide stronger evidence for primary prevention of CVD in young adults and children with NAFLD. Systematic Review Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ , PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023457817.
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 | 0.017 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".