Cognitive impairment and liver fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Data regarding the prevalence and phenotype of cognitive impairment in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are limited. Objective: We assessed the prevalence and nature of cognitive deficits in people with NAFLD and assessed whether liver fibrosis, an important determinant of outcomes in NAFLD, is associated with worse cognitive performance. Methods: We performed a prospective cross-sectional study. Patients with NAFLD underwent liver fibrosis assessment with transient elastography and the following assessments: Cognitive Change Index, Eight-Item Informant Interview to Differentiate Aging and Dementia Questionnaire (AD8), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), EncephalApp minimal hepatic encephalopathy test and a limited National Institutes of Health Toolbox battery (Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test, Pattern Comparison Test and Auditory Verbal Learning Test). We used multiple linear regression models to examine the association between liver fibrosis and cognitive measures while adjusting for relevant covariates. Results: We included 69 participants with mean age 50.4 years (SD 14.4); 62% were women. The median liver stiffness was 5.0 kilopascals (IQR 4.0-6.9), and 25% had liver fibrosis (≥7.0 kilopascals). Cognitive deficits were common in people with NAFLD; 41% had subjective cognitive impairment, 13% had an AD8 >2, 32% had MoCA <26 and 12% had encephalopathy detected on the EncephalApp test. In adjusted models, people with liver fibrosis had modestly worse performance only on the Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Task (β=-0.3; 95% CI -0.6 to -0.1). Conclusion: Cognitive deficits are common in people with NAFLD, among whom liver fibrosis was modestly associated with worse inhibitory control and attention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".