Liver Disease in NAFLD: A Patient's Guide to Noninvasive Testing and What It Means for Your Care

Table of Contents

• Key Points
• Background: Why Fatty Liver Disease Matters So Much
• The Two Critical Questions Doctors Must Answer
• How Noninvasive Testing Works: Two Different Approaches
• Serum Biomarkers: Strengths and Weaknesses
• Imaging Techniques: Elastography Explained
• Diagnosing and Grading Steatosis (Liver Fat)
• Conventional Ultrasound for Liver Fat
• Controlled Attenuation Parameter (CAP)
• MRI Proton-Density Fat Fraction (MRI-PDFF)
• Diagnosing NASH: Blood-Based Approaches
• What This Means for Patients
• Limitations of the Research
• Recommendations and Next Steps
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Source Information

Key Points

• NAFLD affects about 1 billion people worldwide, but only those with NASH and advanced fibrosis face the highest risk of serious liver complications.
• Liver biopsy is invasive, costly, and prone to sampling error, making it impractical for evaluating every at-risk patient.
• Blood-based scores like FIB-4 are widely available but not liver-specific, so results must be interpreted carefully.
• In a meta-analysis of 2,735 patients, CAP detected fat in over 33% of liver cells with an AUROC of 0.86.
• In 78 American NAFLD patients, MRI-PDFF measured fat more accurately than CAP (AUROC 0.99 vs 0.85).

Background: Why Fatty Liver Disease Matters So Much

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a condition in which fat builds up in the liver for reasons other than heavy alcohol use. It affects around one-quarter of the general population worldwide. For comparison, that is roughly 1 billion people globally.

Within this large group, a smaller subset has the active, progressive form called nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). NASH is defined by specific changes visible under a microscope: lobular inflammation (inflammation scattered through the liver tissue) and hepatocyte ballooning (liver cells that become swollen and damaged). NASH is associated with faster progression of fibrosis (scarring) and affects roughly 1.5% to 6.5% of the general population.

NAFLD rarely occurs alone. It is frequently accompanied by metabolic conditions. The review reports these rates of co-existing conditions among people with NAFLD:

• Obesity: 51% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41%–61%) — about 1 in 2 patients
• Type 2 diabetes: 22% (95% CI, 18%–28%) — about 1 in 5 patients
• Hyperlipidemia (high blood fats/cholesterol): 69% (95% CI, 50%–83%) — about 7 in 10 patients
• Hypertension (high blood pressure): 39% (95% CI, 33%–46%) — about 4 in 10 patients
• Metabolic syndrome (a cluster of these risk factors): 42% (95% CI, 30%–56%) — about 4 in 10 patients

The most common cause of death in patients with NAFLD is cardiovascular disease (heart and blood vessel disease), independent of other metabolic conditions. Even so, NAFLD is becoming a major cause of liver-related illness. This includes cirrhosis (permanent scarring of the liver), end-stage liver disease, hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer), and the need for liver transplantation. The authors project that NAFLD will become the leading reason for liver transplantation in the United States within the next decade.

The mortality numbers are striking. Among patients with NAFLD overall, liver-specific death occurs at a rate of 0.77 per 1000 person-years, and death from any cause occurs at 11.77 per 1000 person-years. Among patients with NASH, those rates jump to 15.44 per 1000 person-years for liver-specific death and 25.56 per 1000 person-years for death from any cause. In plain terms: NASH patients die from liver-related causes about 20 times more often than the general NAFLD population.

The vast majority of NAFLD patients, however, will never progress to serious disease. Only a minority — those with NASH and advanced hepatic fibrosis (significant liver scarring) — carry the greatest risk of developing complications of chronic liver disease. Advanced fibrosis has repeatedly been shown to be the major driver of long-term outcomes and death.

The Two Critical Questions Doctors Must Answer

Because so many people have NAFLD but relatively few will suffer serious consequences, doctors face two essential questions when evaluating a patient:

1. Does this patient have NASH, or merely simple steatosis (fat in the liver without significant inflammation)?
2. Does this patient have advanced hepatic fibrosis (significant scarring)?

Until now, liver biopsy has been the gold standard for answering both questions. But biopsy has well-known drawbacks. It is invasive (it requires a needle through the skin into the liver). It carries rare but potentially life-threatening complications. It has poor acceptability among patients. It is subject to sampling variability — meaning the small sample taken may not represent the whole liver. And it is expensive.

Given the enormous number of at-risk patients worldwide, evaluating every one with a biopsy is simply impractical. This gap has fueled intense research over the past decade into noninvasive alternatives. This review summarizes the current state of those tools and offers expert guidance on how they could be used in clinical practice.

How Noninvasive Testing Works: Two Different Approaches

Noninvasive methods fall into two broad categories, and they are based on fundamentally different principles.

The first is the "biological" approach. This relies on measuring biomarkers — specific proteins, enzymes, or other molecules — in blood samples. These markers reflect biological processes linked to NASH or to the stage of fibrosis.

The second is the "physical" approach. This relies on measuring liver stiffness using elastography, a technique that sends a small mechanical pulse or vibration into the liver and measures how fast it travels. Stiffer liver tissue generally means more scarring. Elastography can be ultrasound-based or magnetic resonance-based.

The two approaches are complementary, but they measure different things. Liver stiffness is a genuine, intrinsic physical property of liver tissue. Serum biomarkers, by contrast, reflect a mixture of clinical and blood parameters that correlate with NASH or fibrosis stage — but they are not strictly liver-specific.

Serum Biomarkers: Strengths and Weaknesses

Many blood-based tools have been developed. These include predictive models for diagnosing or grading steatosis (such as the Fatty Liver Index). They include models for staging fibrosis (such as the NAFLD Fibrosis Score). They include direct measures of liver cell damage (such as circulating keratin 18 fragments) to distinguish NASH from simple steatosis. They also include direct measures of fibrosis (such as PIIINP or Pro-C3) to identify advanced fibrosis.

Some scores are specific to NAFLD — for example, the BARD score and the NAFLD fibrosis score. Others were originally designed for hepatitis C and later applied to NAFLD. These include the AST/ALT ratio (aspartate transaminase to alanine transaminase ratio), the APRI (Aspartate Transaminase-to-Platelet Ratio Index), and FIB-4. A few are proprietary formulas (FibroTest, Fibrometer, Hepascore, and the Enhanced Liver Fibrosis [ELF] score), but most are nonpatented and freely available.

The practical advantages of blood biomarker tests are considerable:

• High applicability — over 95% of patients can undergo the test
• Good reproducibility between laboratories
• Potential for widespread availability (many are nonpatented)

But there are real downsides. None of these markers is liver-specific, so results can be distorted by other conditions a patient may have. This means clinicians must interpret results critically rather than taking them at face value.

Imaging Techniques: Elastography Explained

Elastography comes in two families: ultrasound-based and magnetic resonance-based. Ultrasound-based elastography detects the velocity of microscopic shear waves (small sideways ripples) induced in liver tissue. Magnetic resonance-based elastography uses an MRI scanner to do the same job. Either way, the speed of the wave is converted into a liver stiffness measurement (LSM), expressed in kilopascals (kPa) or in meters per second.

Vibration-controlled transient elastography (TE) was the pioneer ultrasound-based technique and remains the most widely used worldwide. Newer elastography methods are now emerging and are built directly into conventional ultrasound machines. These include:

• Point shear wave elastography (pSWE), which includes acoustic radiation force impulse imaging (ARFI)
• Two-dimensional shear wave elastography (2D-SWE)

TE and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) have an added advantage in NAFLD: the same machine can also determine whether fat is present in the liver. For TE, this is done with the controlled attenuation parameter (CAP). For MRE, it is done by calculating the proton-density fat fraction (PDFF).

Diagnosing and Grading Steatosis (Liver Fat)

Several blood-based scores have been proposed to detect liver fat. These include the SteatoTest, the Fatty Liver Index, the Hepatic Steatosis Index, the lipid accumulation product, the Index of NASH, and the NAFLD Liver Fat Score.

A key problem is that these scores are hard to compare directly, because they were designed and validated against different reference standards: liver biopsy, ultrasonography, or magnetic resonance spectroscopy. In one retrospective comparison, researchers applied the Fatty Liver Index, NAFLD Liver Fat Score, and Hepatic Steatosis Index to the same group of 324 patients with suspected NAFLD who had undergone liver biopsy. Their AUROC values (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve — a measure of diagnostic accuracy, where 1.0 is perfect) for detecting steatosis above 5% were similar: 0.83, 0.80, and 0.81, respectively.

The authors note, however, that these scores have not gained much popularity in practice, because they add little beyond what routine clinical examination, laboratory tests, and imaging already provide.

Conventional Ultrasound for Liver Fat

Conventional ultrasonography is the most commonly used imaging method for diagnosing hepatic steatosis. It is widely available, well established, well tolerated, and inexpensive. Typical features include hyperechogenicity (a brighter appearance compared with the right kidney), distal attenuation (the ultrasound signal fading as it passes through fat), and areas of focal sparing.

The degree of fat can be scored subjectively as mild, moderate, or severe, or with ordinal ultrasound scores. In a large meta-analysis of 34 studies and 2,815 patients with suspected or known liver disease, ultrasound showed a pooled sensitivity of 85% (95% CI, 80%–89%) and specificity of 93% (95% CI, 87%–97%) for distinguishing moderate-to-severe fatty liver from no steatosis, using liver biopsy as the reference.

Despite these figures, ultrasound has clear limits in practice. Most clinicians only record whether steatosis is present or absent. Ultrasound can only detect steatosis when liver fat content is roughly above 2.5% to 20%, meaning a significant number of patients whose disease starts at 5% liver fat can be missed. Accuracy also drops in patients with obesity or coexisting kidney disease. Newer quantitative ultrasound approaches have shown better results. Even so, European guidelines for NAFLD management recommend ultrasound as the first-choice imaging test for adults at risk.

Controlled Attenuation Parameter (CAP)

CAP is a feature built into transient elastography machines. CAP measures how much ultrasound energy is attenuated (absorbed) by liver fat. CAP gives an estimate of fat content at the same time as stiffness is measured.

In the original CAP study of 115 patients with chronic liver disease (only 15% had NAFLD), CAP detected steatosis ≥11%, ≥33%, and ≥66% with AUROCs of 0.91, 0.95, and 0.89, respectively.

A larger individual-patient-data meta-analysis pooled 19 studies using the M-probe, covering 2,735 patients, of whom 537 had NAFLD (19.6%). For steatosis ≥11%, ≥33%, and ≥66%, the AUROCs were 0.82, 0.86, and 0.88; sensitivities were 0.69, 0.77, and 0.88; and specificities were 0.82, 0.81, and 0.78. The authors proposed optimal cutoffs of:

• 248 dB/m (95% CI, 237–261 dB/m) for steatosis ≥11%
• 268 dB/m (95% CI, 257–284 dB/m) for steatosis ≥33%
• 280 dB/m (95% CI, 268–294 dB/m) for steatosis ≥66%

CAP values are influenced by several factors, including whether NAFLD is present, diabetes, and body mass index (BMI). Using MRI-PDFF as the reference, one group suggested 288 dB/m as the optimal cutoff for detecting 5% or more liver fat.

A major limitation is that CAP cannot reliably separate adjacent grades of steatosis, because results overlap between grades. Most NAFLD studies of CAP have been small (fewer than 100 patients) with mixed BMI and diabetes rates, which helps explain the variation in proposed cutoffs. One consistent finding: the cutoff linked to significant steatosis (fat in more than 33% of liver cells) is almost always above 250 dB/m.

Most studies used the M-probe. In a recent U.S. multicenter study using the XL-probe in 393 NAFLD patients, CAP had an AUROC of 0.76 for detecting steatosis above 5%, with a 96% positive predictive value at a cutoff of 263 dB/m. However, its accuracy for separating ≥33% and ≥66% steatosis was suboptimal.

Only two studies have compared M- and XL-probes head to head with biopsy as the reference, and results conflicted. One (236 Western patients with chronic liver disease, mean BMI 24.4 ± 6.3 kg/m²) found similar performance and cutoffs. The other (57 Chinese NAFLD patients, mean BMI 30.2 ± 5.0 kg/m²) found similar performance but higher cutoff values with the XL-probe.

Two studies compared CAP with ultrasound against biopsy: one in 72 patients with chronic liver disease, the other in 366 patients with chronic hepatitis B. Both found CAP superior for detecting and grading steatosis. But CAP overestimated steatosis far more often than ultrasound (30.5% vs 12.4%; P < .05).

Three studies compared CAP with MRI-PDFF or magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) for grading steatosis, using biopsy as reference. CAP was outperformed each time. In a study of 78 American NAFLD patients, MRI-PDFF was better than CAP for diagnosing all grades of steatosis (AUROC 0.99 vs 0.85; P = .0091). Similar results appeared in 127 Japanese and 55 Dutch NAFLD patients.

A large longitudinal study followed 4,282 patients who had both a reliable liver stiffness measurement and at least 10 successful CAP measurements. Neither the presence nor the severity of hepatic steatosis predicted liver-related events, cancer, or cardiovascular events in the short term. By contrast, liver stiffness and the underlying cause of liver disease independently predicted liver-related events. Subgroup analyses of viral hepatitis (hepatitis B: 37.0%; hepatitis C: 2.9%) and NAFLD patients (40.7% of the entire cohort) showed similar results.

The authors conclude that CAP is a promising point-of-care technique for rapid, standardized fat quantification. But it needs better validation in NAFLD with the XL-probe. MRI-PDFF outperforms it, and comparisons with ultrasound — still the most widely used first-line tool — remain limited.

MRI Proton-Density Fat Fraction (MRI-PDFF)

Magnetic resonance spectroscopy has been used in several large epidemiologic studies. With the development of MRI-PDFF, quantifying liver fat has become far more practical in both research and clinical settings.

Several single-center studies showed that MRI-PDFF usefully tracks changes in liver fat over a 24-week period when paired with MRS and liver histology. These studies suggested MRI-PDFF was more sensitive than liver biopsy in detecting changes in liver fat — a notable finding, since biopsy is the traditional gold standard. These results have since been confirmed in multicenter studies in both adults and children.

Longitudinal change in MRI-PDFF correlates very strongly with longitudinal change in MRS-PDFF, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.96 to 0.99, when both measurements at each time point are meticulously co-localized (taken from exactly the same liver region).

Several early-phase NASH trials have adopted MRI-PDFF as an endpoint to test drug efficacy. The MOZART trial stands for Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Elastography in Ezetimibe Versus Placebo for the Assessment of Response to Treatment in NASH. The MOZART trial demonstrated the need to co-localize regions of interest before and after treatment. This is because liver fat is distributed unevenly throughout the liver.

Crucially, MRI-PDFF cannot assess liver inflammation, ballooning, resolution of NASH, or improvement in fibrosis. It measures fat only.

As trial data accumulated, experts noticed a range of liver fat improvement across studies. Using paired MRI-PDFF and histology data from the MOZART trial, researchers found that at a threshold of a relative 30% reduction in MRI-PDFF, patients began to show significantly higher odds of a 2-point improvement in the NAFLD Activity Score on liver histology. These findings require further validation, which is ongoing in a multicenter setting. Higher baseline liver fat content in patients without fibrosis has also been linked to significantly higher odds of fibrosis progression. This suggests liver fat may carry prognostic meaning, especially early in the scarring process.

MRI-PDFF estimation methods are now FDA-approved and commercially available on scanners from several vendors, including GE Healthcare, Siemens, and Philips, making them more accessible on newer machines.

Diagnosing NASH: Blood-Based Approaches

Many serum biomarkers have been investigated for diagnosing NASH, but cytokeratin (CK)-18 is by far the most widely studied. CK-18 fragments are released when liver cells undergo apoptosis (programmed cell death) through the action of the enzyme caspase 3. They can be measured in serum by immunoassay.

Two assays exist: the M30 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay measures caspase-cleaved K18 fragments and detects apoptosis, a hallmark of steatohepatitis; the M65 assay detects total cell death.

The initial study by Feldstein and colleagues reported that circulating CK-18 levels predicted NASH in NAFLD patients with an AUROC of 0.83, a sensitivity of 0.75, and a specificity of 0.81 at a CK-18 value of about 250 U/L. Many subsequent studies confirmed these results, though in relatively small populations. Two meta-analyses found CK-18 had a pooled AUROC of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.76–0.88) for predicting NASH, with median sensitivity of 66%–78% and specificity of 82%–87%.

However, CK-18 has several problems:

• No commercially available clinical test
• Limited sensitivity at the individual patient level
• Considerable variability in suggested cutoffs and diagnostic accuracy across studies, making threshold selection difficult

These limitations have restricted CK-18's clinical usefulness. To boost sensitivity, some researchers combined CK-18 with other markers such as sFas levels, uric acid, adiponectin and resistin (the "NASH diagnostics" panel). Others combined ALT plus the presence of metabolic syndrome (the "Nice Model").

Other predictive models combining clinical and laboratory data have been proposed for NASH diagnosis, including:

• HAIR — hypertension, increased ALT, and insulin resistance
• Palekar score — age, sex, AST, BMI, AST/ALT ratio, and hyaluronic acid
• Gholam score — AST and diabetes mellitus
• oxNASH — 13-hydroxyl-octadecadienoic acid/linoleic acid ratio, age, BMI, and AST
• NAFIC score — ferritin, insulin, and type IV collagen 7s
• NashTest — a proprietary formula including 12 variables (age, sex, height, weight, triglycerides, cholesterol, α2-macroglobulin, apolipoprotein A1, haptoglobin, γ-glutamyltransferase, ALT, AST, and total bilirubin)

In a meta-analysis by the test's developer, covering 494 obese patients with a NASH prevalence of 17.2%, the weighted AUROC of NashTest was 0.84. However, most of these models rely on small, highly selected populations (frequently patients with morbid obesity) and have not been externally validated.

Newer genetic approaches have also been proposed. These include single nucleotide polymorphisms (small genetic variations) located in the PNPLA3 gene, such as:

• The NASH Score — PNPLA3 genotype, AST, and fasting insulin
• The NASH ClinLipMet Score — glutamate, isoleucine, glycine, lysophosphatidylcholine 16:0, phosphoethanolamine 40:6, AST, fasting insulin, and PNPLA3 genotype

Also under study is the expression of noncoding RNAs, specifically microRNAs such as miR-122. So far, however, the information these markers provide has had only moderate clinical utility.

The authors' bottom line: no currently available serum marker can differentiate NASH from simple steatosis with high sensitivity and specificity. However, combining different approaches can improve diagnostic accuracy.

What This Means for Patients

If you have been told you have fatty liver disease, the most important thing to understand is that most people with NAFLD never develop serious liver problems. The risk is concentrated in those who have NASH plus advanced fibrosis.

This means the goal of testing is not to diagnose "fatty liver" — ultrasound often does that easily. The goal is to answer two harder questions: is there active inflammation, and is there significant scarring?

Several practical points follow from this review:

• Blood-based fibrosis scores (such as FIB-4 or the NAFLD Fibrosis Score) are widely available and can be applied to over 95% of patients. They are a reasonable first step, but they are not liver-specific and must be interpreted carefully.
• Vibration-controlled transient elastography (TE) with CAP is the most widely used stiffness measurement worldwide and can give information on both fat and stiffness in one visit.
• MRI-based techniques (MRI-PDFF and MRE) are more accurate for measuring fat than CAP, and MRI-PDFF is FDA-approved and increasingly available.
• Liver biopsy remains the only test that can fully assess inflammation and ballooning, but it is no longer practical as a routine screening tool.

Patients should also know that their metabolic health matters. Obesity, type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure commonly accompany NAFLD, and cardiovascular disease — not liver disease — is the leading cause of death in this population.

Limitations of the Research

The review is candid about the gaps in the evidence.

Most CAP studies in NAFLD have been small — fewer than 100 patients — and enrolled heterogeneous populations with varying BMI and diabetes rates. This likely explains why different studies propose different cutoffs.

Only two studies have directly compared the M-probe and XL-probe versions of CAP, and they disagreed on cutoff values. Comparisons between CAP and ultrasound are limited to two studies. Longitudinal data on CAP are only just emerging.

For blood biomarkers, most NASH prediction models were developed in small, highly selected groups, particularly patients with morbid obesity, and have not been externally validated.

CK-18, the most studied NASH blood marker, lacks a commercially available clinical test and shows substantial variability in suggested cutoffs across studies.

MRI-PDFF, while highly accurate for fat, cannot assess inflammation, ballooning, NASH resolution, or fibrosis improvement. The finding that a 30% relative reduction in MRI-PDFF predicts histological improvement still requires validation.

The authors also note that much work remains to establish cost-effective strategies for screening for NASH, advanced fibrosis, and cirrhosis.

Recommendations and Next Steps

Based on this review, clinicians and researchers should consider the following:

1. Use noninvasive tools in sequence, not in isolation. The authors emphasize that combining different approaches improves diagnostic accuracy, especially for NASH.
2. Rely on stiffness measurement for prognosis. The large longitudinal study of 4,282 patients found that liver stiffness — not steatosis severity — independently predicted liver-related events.
3. Prefer MRI-PDFF over CAP when precise fat quantification is needed, particularly in clinical trials, since MRI-PDFF outperformed CAP across every head-to-head comparison.
4. Continue using ultrasound as first-line imaging for adults at risk, consistent with European guidelines, while recognizing its limitations in obesity and in detecting low levels of fat.
5. Validate CAP in NAFLD with the XL-probe, since body size affects its performance.
6. Prioritize research on cost-effective screening strategies and on external validation of blood-based NASH models.

The authors also emphasize a broader priority: much of the work remains to be done in establishing practical, affordable pathways for screening large populations. Until then, the combination of readily available blood tests, elastography, and — where appropriate — MRI-based techniques offers the best available alternative to liver biopsy.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I need a liver biopsy to find out if I have fatty liver disease?

Not necessarily. Liver biopsy is invasive, costly, and can miss scarring because it samples only a small part of the liver. Because about 1 billion people worldwide have fatty liver, biopsy is impractical for everyone. Doctors now use blood tests, ultrasound elastography, and MRI-based techniques to assess fat and scarring without a biopsy.

What is the difference between NAFLD and NASH?

NAFLD means fat in the liver without another cause such as heavy alcohol use. NASH is the active form, defined under a microscope by lobular inflammation and hepatocyte ballooning (swollen, damaged liver cells). NASH is linked to faster fibrosis progression and affects roughly 1.5% to 6.5% of the general population. Most people with NAFLD never develop serious liver problems.

What do my blood test results for liver fibrosis actually mean?

Scores such as FIB-4 or the NAFLD Fibrosis Score estimate scarring from routine blood values. They can be applied to over 95% of patients and are a reasonable first step. But they are not liver-specific, so other conditions can distort results. They must be interpreted carefully and often need to be combined with imaging.

How accurate is ultrasound elastography (FibroScan) for liver fat and scarring?

Vibration-controlled transient elastography (TE) measures liver stiffness and, with CAP, estimates fat in one visit. In a meta-analysis of 2,735 patients, CAP detected fat in over 33% of liver cells with an AUROC of 0.86. However, CAP cannot reliably separate adjacent fat grades, and MRI-PDFF outperformed it in head-to-head comparisons.

Is MRI-PDFF better than other tests for measuring liver fat?

In several studies, MRI-PDFF measured liver fat more accurately than CAP. For example, in 78 American NAFLD patients, MRI-PDFF had an AUROC of 0.99 versus 0.85 for CAP. MRI-PDFF is FDA-approved and increasingly available. However, it measures fat only and cannot assess inflammation, ballooning, NASH resolution, or fibrosis improvement.

Can a blood test tell if I have NASH (active liver inflammation)?

No currently available blood marker can reliably distinguish NASH from simple steatosis. Cytokeratin-18 is the most studied, with a pooled AUROC of 0.82 in two meta-analyses, but it lacks a commercial test and shows variable cutoffs. Combining different noninvasive approaches can improve diagnostic accuracy, but biopsy remains the only test that fully assesses inflammation.

I was told I have fatty liver disease — when should I get a second opinion about whether I have NASH or scarring?

A second opinion is worth considering when the key questions are whether you have active inflammation (NASH) and significant scarring. Most people with fatty liver never develop serious liver problems. Risk is concentrated in those two findings. Blood-based fibrosis scores such as FIB-4 or the NAFLD Fibrosis Score are a reasonable first step but are not liver-specific. No serum marker can separate NASH from simple steatosis with high sensitivity and specificity. Stiffness measurement independently predicts liver-related events, so confirming it matters. Diagnostic Detectives Network provides independent expert second opinions.

Source Information

Original article title: Noninvasive Assessment of Liver Disease in Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

Authors: Laurent Castera, Mireen Friedrich-Rust, and Rohit Loomba

Author affiliations: Department of Hepatology, Hôpital Beaujon, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale Unité Mixte de Recherche 1149, University of Paris-VII, Clichy, France; Department of Internal Medicine 1, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Goethe University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany; Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Research Center, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California

Published in: Gastroenterology, April 2019; volume 156, issue 5, pages 1264–1281.e4. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.12.036

Keywords: NAFLD; Steatosis; NASH; Fibrosis; Noninvasive; VCTE; CAP; MRI-PDFF; MRE; Serum Biomarkers; ARFI; SWE

Disclosure: The authors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical and device companies, including AbbVie, Echosens, Intercept, Gilead, Siemens, and others. One author is a co-founder of Liponexus Inc.

This patient-friendly article is based on peer-reviewed research.