Observational Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Gastroenterol. Oct 14, 2022; 28(38): 5636-5647
Published online Oct 14, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i38.5636
Table 1 Clinical characteristics of study participants
Parameter
ALC, n = 142
MAFLD, n = 92
Controls, n = 68
Together, n = 302
Sex (F/M)36/10633/5936/32105/197
Age (yr), (mean ± SD; median; min-max)54 ± 12; 55; 31-8460 ± 15; 61; 22-9046 ± 16; 45; 20-8554 ± 15; 55; 20-90
BMI (kg/m2) (mean ± SD; median; min-max)25.89 ± 9.31; 25.91; 16.7-36.7129.49 ± 4.9; 28.7; 16.26-43.0121.95 ± 2.62; 22.45; 16.18-24.86-
DM type 20/14222/92--
AH32/14246/92--
Table 2 Results of used scores in research group
Score
ALC
MAFLD
mean ± SD
Median
Min
Max
mean ± SD
Median
Min
Max
MELD17 ± 816645----
BARD----2 ± 1204
NAFLD fibrosis score-----1.36 ± 1.5-1.16-5.831.74
Table 3 Results of indirect and direct markers of liver fibrosis together with hematological markers in examined patients
Parameter (reference range)
ALC
MAFLD
Controls
mean ± SD
Median
Min
Max
mean ± SD
Median
Min
Max
mean ± SD
Median
Min
Max
RDW (11%-15%)17.27 ± 3.2616.7d12.227.914.25 ± 2.5213.85a4.22513.45 ± 1.113.411.115
RPR0.26 ± 0.370.18d0.043.550.06 ± 0.020.06d0.020.180.05 ± 0.010.050.030.08
RLR19.14 ± 12.2715.73d1.679.2310.89 ± 8.558.13d0.66607.09 ± 2.486.243.3812.5
FIB-411.67 ± 25.466.34d0.69287.591.92 ± 1.631.57d0.2311.580.85 ± 0.540.710.283.27
GPR15.73 ± 28.546.65d0.18188.712.76 ± 5.570.54d0.1335.410.25 ± 0.10.240.060.63
PICP (ng/mL)63.32 ± 31.5360.536.15161.1252.14 ± 27.5646.0810.10147.2758.26 ± 37.3944.180202.89
PIIINP (ng/mL)9.28 ± 4.338.4b2.4328.6511.41 ± 3.9911.002.1825.3511.07 ± 5.6110.254.3543.63
PDGF-AB (pg/mL)18280.47 ± 8061.0617343.71c1925.6842823.8426858.68 ± 7335.0926682.8310821.0249808.0723579.28 ± 10068.825623.21638.247758.7
TGF-α (pg/mL)24 ± 45.3313.77d0.872507.0917.89 ± 19.1812.09d1.39142.6328.44 ± 17.2124.591.3193.55
Laminin (ng/mL)976.34 ± 705.29832.06a101.9333301.0048 ± 230.24375.23d72.871335.92718.24 ± 386.1663.27140.881813.88
Table 4 Correlations between examined parameters in examined alcohol-related liver cirrhosis and metabolic-associated fatty liver disease patients
Pair
R Spearman
P value
ALC
RPR vs FIB-40.733P < 0.0001
RPR vs GPR0.398P < 0.0001
RPR vs MELD0.267P < 0.01
RDW vs PDGF-AB-0.257P < 0.01
RPR vs PDGF-AB-0.380P < 0.0001
MAFLD
RDW vs FIB-40.215P < 0.05
RPR vs APRI0.469P < 0.0001
RPR vs NFS0.688P < 0.0001
Table 5 Diagnostic accuracy of hematological indices in examined alcohol-related liver cirrhosis and metabolic-associated fatty liver disease patients
ParameterALC
MAFLD
Diagnostic accuracy
Diagnostic accuracy

AUC
Sensitivity (%)
Specificity (%)
PPV (%)
NPV (%)
PLR
NLR
P value
AUC
Sensitivity (%)
Specificity (%)
PPV (%)
NPV (%)
PLR
NLR
P value
RDW0.912917187793.140.13P < 0.00010.606883264671.290.38P < 0.05
RPR0.9658897988029.330.12P < 0.00010.724775470641.670.43P < 0.0001
RLR0.914897789783,870,14P < 0.00010.691805269661.670.38P < 0.0001