Association of blood pressure with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease defined by fatty liver index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the known association between hypertension and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), the cut-off values of blood pressure for identifying risk of NAFLD have not yet been determined. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance and optimal cut-off values of blood pressure for detecting NAFLD defined by fatty liver index (FLI). This cross-sectional study included 1227 participants aged 35-55 years. NAFLD was determined by FLI with a cut-off value of ≥60. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the diagnostic ability of blood pressure parameters for screening FLI-defined NAFLD and to determine their cut-off values. The results of this study showed that systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were significantly correlated with FLI values. The prevalence of NAFLD defined by FLI was 23.5% in men and 18.2% in women. The ROC curve analysis showed a good ability of blood pressure for the prediction of FLI-defined NAFLD. The optimal cut-off values of SBP and DBP were 136 and 88 mmHg in men and 137 and 85 mmHg in women, respectively. Thus, high-normal blood pressure is associated with the risk of NAFLD defined by FLI in both men and women.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".