Modeling Reductions in Liver Fat: Comparing Noninvasive Tests to Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Proton Density Fat Fraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) is an accurate, noninvasive tool for diagnosing metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, but its feasibility is limited in routine clinical practice. We aimed to assess the clinical utility of alternative, cost-efficient approaches for assessing liver fat changes and their relationship with MRI-PDFF changes. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a phase 2a study that included adults with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease who received clesacostat, a selective, reversible inhibitor of acetyl-CoA carboxylase. In this secondary analysis, responders were defined as those in whom a ≥30% decrease in liver fat by MRI-PDFF was observed with clesacostat or placebo. Other endpoints were evaluated for their ability to predict MRI-PDFF responder status, including controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), liver enzymes (alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and gamma-glutamyl transferase), metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis-related biomarkers (liver stiffness measurement by vibration-controlled transient elastography, cytokeratin 18-M30, and cytokeratin 18-M65), and markers of hepatic steatosis (hepatic steatosis index and fatty liver index). These relationships were investigated through correlation, univariate, and multivariable regression analyses. Results: Of 260 participants with a baseline and on-treatment measure at week 12 or week 16, 143 were responders. Based on correlation analyses, a significant but weak positive correlation between MRI-PDFF and CAP measurements of relative percentage change from baseline in liver fat was observed. By combining the selected 6 parameters (CAP, hepatic steatosis index, fatty liver index, alanine aminotransferase, gamma-glutamyl transferase, and cytokeratin 18-M65) through multivariable regression modeling, responders can be predicted with a high level of sensitivity and specificity (mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.831 from 10-fold cross-validation). Conclusion: Modeling multiple noninvasive assessments of liver fat closely aligned with MRI-PDFF measurements. These data support further assessment of its suitability in real-world 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 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".