MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411272899 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312650

Comparative association between NAFLD and MAFLD with cardiovascular events and mortality: Evidence from observational studies

2025· review· en· W4411272899 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ting Fu, Jitao Ling, Huilei Zhao, Kaixin Lin, You Deng, Miao Zhang, Xinrui Qi, Peng Yu, Weichun Lin, Xiao Liu

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Guangzhou City
KeywordsObservational studyMedicineAssociation (psychology)Internal medicineMEDLINEBioinformaticsBiologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) are increasingly recognized as multisystemic conditions with significant extrahepatic manifestations. Although both diseases have been linked to cardiovascular events and mortality, the strength of these associations remains controversial. This review aims to compare the risks of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in individuals with NAFLD and MAFLD. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify studies investigating the risk of CVD, CVD death, and all-cause death associated with NAFLD and MAFLD through April 28th, 2024. Data extraction and study quality assessment were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Statistical analysis utilized random-effects models. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: Eleven cohort studies with 11,995,994 patients were included. Both NAFLD and MAFLD were associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events (NAFLD group vs. non-NAFLD group: HR = 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13-1.49, I2 = 91%; MAFLD group vs. non-MAFLD group: HR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.32-1.81, I2 = 92%) and all-cause death (NAFLD group vs. non-NAFLD group: HR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.04-1.33, I2 = 55%; MAFLD group vs. non-MAFLD group: HR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.20-1.40, I2 = 0%). The MAFLD-only group had a stronger association with cardiovascular death than the NAFLD-only group (MAFLD-only group vs neither MAFLD nor NAFLD group: HR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.40-1.51, I2 = 0%; NAFLD-only group vs neither MAFLD nor NAFLD group: HR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.95-1.28, I2 = 0%, P for interaction < 0.01). The GRADE assessment revealed low certainty for cardiovascular disease (CVD) (NAFLD only group vs. neither NAFLD nor MAFLD group), cardiovascular death (NAFLD only group vs. neither NAFLD nor MAFLD group), and all-cause death (MAFLD group vs non-MAFLD group), and very low certainty for other results. CONCLUSION: MAFLD and NAFLD are both associated with cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. However, the odds of cardiovascular death seems to be greater in patients with MAFLD than in those with NAFLD, suggesting that the use of MAFLD criteria may identify more at-risk individuals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CD42022361164.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.178
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.178
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.016
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.477
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.067 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→