Cited by 236Liver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentLiver Diseases and ImmunityLiver Disease and Transplantation

AGA clinical practice update on the role of noninvasive biomarkers in the evaluation and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: expert review

Open access
Wattacheril, Julia J., Abdelmalek, Manal F., Lim, Joseph K., Sanyal, Arun J.·2023·Gastroenterology

Abstract

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update Expert Review is to provide clinicians with guidance on the use of noninvasive tests (NITs) in the evaluation and management of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). NAFLD affects nearly 30% of the global population and is a growing cause of end-stage liver disease and liver-related health care resource utilization. However, only a minority of all patients with NAFLD experience a liver-related outcome. It is therefore critically important for clinicians to assess prognosis and identify those with increased risk of disease progression and negative clinical outcomes at the time of initial assessment. It is equally important to assess disease trajectory over time, particularly in response to currently available therapeutic approaches. The reference standard for assessment of prognosis and disease monitoring is histologic examination of liver biopsy specimens. There are, however, many limitations of liver biopsies and their reading that have limited their use in routine practice. The utilization of NITs facilitates risk stratification of patients and longitudinal assessment of disease progression for patients with NAFLD. This clinical update provides best practice advice based on a review of the literature on the utilization of NITs in the management of NAFLD for clinicians. Accordingly, a combination of available evidence and consensus-based expert opinion, without formal rating of the strength and quality of the evidence, was used to develop these best practice advice statements. METHODS: This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These best practice advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these best practice advice statements do not carry formal ratings of the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: NITs can be used for risk stratification in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with NAFLD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: A Fibrosis 4 Index score <1.3 is associated with strong negative predictive value for advanced hepatic fibrosis and may be useful for exclusion of advanced hepatic fibrosis in patients with NAFLD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: A combination of 2 or more NITs combining serum biomarkers and/or imaging-based biomarkers is preferred for staging and risk stratification of patients with NAFLD whose Fibrosis 4 Index score is >1.3. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Use of NITs in accordance with manufacturer's specifications (eg, not in patients with ascites or pacemakers) can minimize risk of discordant results and adverse events. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: NITs should be interpreted with context and consideration of pertinent clinical data (eg, physical examination, biochemical, radiographic, and endoscopic) to optimize positive predictive value in the identification of patients with advanced fibrosis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Liver biopsy should be considered for patients with NIT results that are indeterminate or discordant; conflict with other clinical, laboratory, or radiologic findings; or when alternative etiologies for liver disease are suspected. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Serial longitudinal monitoring using NITs for assessment of disease progression or regression may inform clinical management (ie, response to lifestyle modification or therapeutic intervention). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Patients with NAFLD and NITs results suggestive of advanced fibrosis (F3) or cirrhosis (F4) should be considered for surveillance of liver complications (eg, hepatocellular carcinoma screening and variceal screening per Baveno criteria). Patients with NAFLD and NITs suggestive of advanced hepatic fibrosis (F3) or (F4), should be monitored with serial liver stiffness measurement; vibration controlled transient elastography; or magnetic resonance elastography, given its correlation with clinically significant portal hypertension and clinical decompensation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.06.013

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • MASLD-related consultations often center around risk stratification, diagnostic workup, and management of underlying metabolic conditions.

    “These consultations often center around risk stratification, diagnostic workup, and management of underlying metabolic conditions.22”

    From Large Language Model–Generated Electronic Consultations: A Blinded Comparative Study of OpenEvidence and Gastroenterologist Electronic Consultations (2026) · cites this paper as [22]

    The evaluation algorithm (Conclusions; page not available) supports diagnostic workup and fibrosis risk stratification for patients with suspected NAFLD. The review discusses specialist referrals, but the passages do not establish what consultations often center on or say that they include management of underlying metabolic conditions. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wattacheril, J. J., Abdelmalek, M. F., Lim, J. K., & Sanyal, A. J.
Affiliations
  • NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
Corresponding author
Wattacheril, Julia J.
Venue
Gastroenterology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-10
Volume
165
Issue
4
Pages
1080-1088
ISSN
0016-5085 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385567515
Cited by
236
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 80 · 2025: 86 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 2
FWCI
47.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gastroenterology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • Allergan
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Liver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver Diseases and Immunity
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver Disease and Transplantation
Keywords
non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, non-invasive biomarkers, non-invasive tests, liver fibrosis, NAFLD fibrosis score, liver biopsy limitations, risk stratification, disease progression monitoring, liver disease staging, serum biomarkers, NAFLD risk prediction, NAFLD management
MeSH terms
Humans, Liver, Liver Cirrhosis, Biomarkers, Disease Progression, Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review