Circulating lipoprotein(a) in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Aim Although nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] are associated with cardiovascular diseases, existing data on Lp(a) in NAFLD are conflicting. The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to summarize and compare data on circulating Lp(a) between NAFLD patients and non‐NAFLD controls. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. This meta‐analysis included 18 studies containing data on 74 691 individuals (20 220 patients with NAFLD and 54 471 controls). Results Circulating Lp(a) was similar between patients with NAFLD and controls (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.09; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] −0.21, 0.38). The heterogeneity among studies was high (I 2 = 100%); no publication bias was detected (Egger's test P = 0.941). However, in subgroup analysis, Lp(a) was lower in NAFLD patients than controls, when Lp(a) was measured with nephelometry (SMD ‐0.26; 95% CI ‐0.46, −0.06), but not turbidimetry; this analysis also resulted in mild reduction of heterogeneity within the subgroup of nephelometry (I 2 = 87%). The sensitivity analyses, based on the exclusion of studies with Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale score ≤6 (n = 5), studies in which liver biopsy was used for NAFLD diagnosis (n = 4) or studies that adopted the criteria of metabolic dysfunction‐associated fatty liver disease (n = 2), and meta‐regression analysis did not explain the high heterogeneity among studies. Conclusions Overall, circulating Lp(a) was similar between NAFLD patients and non‐NAFLD controls; however, patients with NAFLD had lower circulating Lp(a) compared with controls, when Lp(a) was measured with nephelometry. These results should be cautiously interpreted, because of the high heterogeneity among studies.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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".