Yodoshi T. Treatment response in pediatric metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: Noninvasive endpoints and body composition. World J Hepatol 2026; 18(10): 125487 [DOI: 10.4254/wjh.125487]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Toshifumi Yodoshi, MD, PhD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Pancreatology and Nutrition, Stead Family Children’s Hospital, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa City, IA 52242, United States. toshifumi-yodoshi@uiowa.edu
Research Domain of This Article
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Article-Type of This Article
review-article
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA
Share the Article
Yodoshi T. Treatment response in pediatric metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: Noninvasive endpoints and body composition. World J Hepatol 2026; 18(10): 125487 [DOI: 10.4254/wjh.125487]
Toshifumi Yodoshi, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Pancreatology and Nutrition, University of Iowa Stead Family Children’s Hospital, Iowa City, IA 52242, United States
Author contributions: Yodoshi T conceptualized and designed the review, conducted the literature search, analyzed and interpreted the literature, and drafted and critically revised the manuscript; the author read and approved the final version.
AI contribution statement: AI was not used to generate or analyze study data.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The author reports no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.
Corresponding author: Toshifumi Yodoshi, MD, PhD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Pancreatology and Nutrition, Stead Family Children’s Hospital, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa City, IA 52242, United States. toshifumi-yodoshi@uiowa.edu
Received: July 8, 2026 Revised: August 9, 2026 Accepted: September 18, 2026 Published online: October 27, 2026 Processing time: 105 Days and 10.2 Hours
Abstract
Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease is the most common chronic liver disease in youth, yet treatment response remains difficult to define as lifestyle therapy, anti-obesity pharmacotherapy, and metabolic and bariatric surgery produce changes across different biological domains. This narrative review examines histology, alanine aminotransferase, magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction, elastography, serum biomarkers, body composition, cardiometabolic health, and patient-centered outcomes as candidate response endpoints. Diagnostic accuracy, cross-sectional severity, prognostic validity, longitudinal responsiveness, association with histological response, and validated thresholds for meaningful change are considered separately. Pediatric evidence remains strongest for repeated aminotransferases, growth-adjusted adiposity measures, and selected imaging approaches, but no single test defines response and normal aminotransferases do not exclude persistent steatohepatitis or fibrosis. Adult magnetic resonance imaging and drug-trial thresholds are informative but cannot be adopted uncritically in children. Loss of lean mass should also not be equated with sarcopenia without evidence of low muscle quantity and impaired strength or function. A practical three-tier framework is proposed: Minimum clinical assessment, specialist-center assessment, and research endpoints. The proposed tiers and reassessment intervals are pragmatic author guidance, not validated pediatric standards, and require prospective validation. Until pediatric longitudinal thresholds are validated, response assessment should be multidimensional, treatment-specific, growth-aware, patient-centered, and adapted to feasibility and equity.
Core Tip: Treatment response in pediatric metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease cannot currently be defined by a single biomarker. Alanine aminotransferase, liver fat, liver stiffness, histology, cardiometabolic health, growth, body composition, and patient-reported outcomes capture complementary domains and may change at different rates. Diagnostic or prognostic performance does not by itself establish longitudinal responsiveness. This review separates those measurement properties, qualifies adult-derived thresholds, and proposes a three-tier, treatment-aware framework that distinguishes hepatic improvement with preserved muscle and normal growth from weight loss alone.
Citation: Yodoshi T. Treatment response in pediatric metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: Noninvasive endpoints and body composition. World J Hepatol 2026; 18(10): 125487
Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is the most common chronic liver disease in children and adolescents, and its prevalence parallels the rise in pediatric obesity[1-3]. The 2023 multisociety nomenclature defines MASLD by hepatic steatosis together with at least one cardiometabolic risk factor and replaces the term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in contemporary usage[4]. Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) denotes the histological phenotype characterized by steatosis, inflammation, and hepatocellular injury. Older studies and validated scores retain the terms NAFLD or NASH; those historical names are preserved only when they are part of a study title, instrument, or original endpoint.
Pediatric MASLD is heterogeneous. Among adolescents undergoing bariatric surgery, biopsy series demonstrate a high prevalence of steatosis and a substantial minority with MASH[5]. Long-term referral cohorts have reported increased mortality in individuals diagnosed during childhood or young adulthood[6,7]. These estimates reflect selected populations, prolonged follow-up, and cumulative adult comorbidity and should not be interpreted as a child’s short-term individual risk. They nevertheless reinforce the importance of identifying progressive disease, particularly fibrosis, while simultaneously addressing obesity, dysglycemia, dyslipidemia, blood pressure, sleep-disordered breathing, and psychosocial health.
The therapeutic landscape is changing. Lifestyle intervention remains first-line, but durable weight reduction is difficult for many youth with severe obesity. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are approved for adolescent obesity, metabolic and bariatric surgery is an established option for selected adolescents with severe obesity, and adult MASH trials now provide histology-based evidence for resmetirom and semaglutide[1,8-12]. No pharmacotherapy is currently approved specifically for pediatric MASLD or MASH. These developments make response assessment a practical clinical problem: Liver biopsy cannot be repeated routinely, and noninvasive measures may improve, worsen, or remain unchanged on different timescales.
This narrative review evaluates candidate treatment-response endpoints in pediatric MASLD. It explicitly separates diagnostic validity, cross-sectional association with disease severity, prognostic validity, longitudinal responsiveness, association with histological response, and validated thresholds for meaningful change. It also distinguishes evidence from pediatric intervention studies, pediatric observational cohorts, adolescent obesity trials, and adult MASH trials. The aim is not to establish a single response definition, but to provide a treatment-aware and growth-aware framework for clinical care and research.
SEARCH STRATEGY
PubMed/MEDLINE was searched from database inception through August 6, 2026 (the final search date). The pediatric search combined disease, population, and response or monitoring concepts, with English-language and human-study filters. Backward screening of reference lists and forward citation tracking of key guidelines, systematic reviews, and included studies were completed through the same date. Adult studies used only for indirect context were identified through targeted citation tracking when pediatric evidence was absent.
Exact PubMed/MEDLINE search string: ((“metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease”[Title/Abstract] OR “metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease”[Title/Abstract] OR “nonalcoholic fatty liver disease”[Title/Abstract] OR “non-alcoholic fatty liver disease”[Title/Abstract] OR “metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis”[Title/Abstract] OR steatohepatitis[Title/Abstract] OR MASLD[Title/Abstract] OR MAFLD[Title/Abstract] OR NAFLD[Title/Abstract] OR MASH[Title/Abstract] OR NASH[Title/Abstract]) AND (child*[Title/Abstract] OR adolescen*[Title/Abstract] OR pediatric*[Title/Abstract] OR paediatric*[Title/Abstract]) AND (“treatment response”[Title/Abstract] OR response[Title/Abstract] OR monitor*[Title/Abstract] OR longitudinal[Title/Abstract] OR histolog*[Title/Abstract] OR “alanine aminotransferase”[Title/Abstract] OR “gamma-glutamyl transferase”[Title/Abstract] OR “proton density fat fraction”[Title/Abstract] OR elastograph*[Title/Abstract] OR biomarker*[Title/Abstract] OR “enhanced liver fibrosis”[Title/Abstract] OR PRO-C3[Title/Abstract] OR cytokeratin-18[Title/Abstract] OR “body composition”[Title/Abstract] OR sarcopen*[Title/Abstract] OR “bariatric surgery”[Title/Abstract] OR “GLP-1”[Title/Abstract] OR semaglutide[Title/Abstract] OR liraglutide[Title/Abstract] OR resmetirom[Title/Abstract])) AND (“1900/01/01”[Date - Publication]: “2026/08/06”[Date - Publication]) AND English[Language] AND Humans[MeSH Terms].
English-language, peer-reviewed human studies, consensus statements, and systematic reviews relevant to response assessment were eligible. The sole author screened titles and abstracts, reviewed potentially eligible full texts, and extracted study design, population, intervention or exposure, sample size, follow-up, endpoint definition, principal numerical results, and pediatric applicability. Screening and extraction were not independently duplicated. Numerical results and endpoint definitions used for key conclusions were checked against the full-text reports.
When several studies addressed the same endpoint, pediatric prospective longitudinal or interventional evidence received the greatest weight, particularly studies with paired histology or standardized imaging, prespecified outcomes, multicenter recruitment, longer follow-up, or external validation. Pediatric observational cohorts were used for association, feasibility, and emerging longitudinal evidence with appropriate qualification; guidelines and systematic reviews provided clinical and evidentiary context. Adult studies were included only when pediatric data were absent or when they illustrated a future therapeutic landscape, prognostic validation, or candidate threshold, and were consistently treated as indirect evidence rather than a source of pediatric standards.
This was a purposefully selected narrative review rather than a systematic review; no PRISMA flow count, formal risk-of-bias assessment, duplicate screening, meta-analysis, or GRADE assessment was performed. Evidence-certainty labels in Table 1 are nonformal author assessments: High denotes direct pediatric evidence with a recognized reference standard and/or repeated validation; moderate denotes pediatric evidence limited by sample size, replication, or directness for longitudinal response; and low denotes sparse, cross-sectional, single-cohort, adult-derived, or otherwise indirect evidence. Combined labels indicate an intermediate judgment.
Table 1 Candidate response endpoints in pediatric metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: Validation, responsiveness, feasibility, and limitations.
Domain/measure
Primary use
Pediatric validation/evidence source
Longitudinal responsiveness
Feasibility/cost
Major confounders and limitations
Pragmatic reassessment interval
Evidence certainty for response
Biochemical injury: ALT, AST, GGT
Serial injury signal; treatment trend
Sex-specific ALT reference limits; dynamic ALT/GGT associated with paired histological change[18,19,38,39]
Responsive over weeks to months, but incomplete surrogate for MASH or fibrosis
High feasibility; low cost
Laboratory method, biological variation, exercise, illness, medications, other liver disease; normal ALT does not exclude MASH/fibrosis
8-12 weeks after major treatment change, then every 3-6 months during active care
Moderate for longitudinal biochemical change; low for stand-alone histological response
Unless a specific pediatric validation study is cited, proposed reassessment intervals and tier assignments are pragmatic author guidance based on biological timescale, feasibility, and clinical actionability. They are not validated pediatric standards, minimum monitoring intervals, consensus recommendations, or a validated clinical algorithm and should be individualized according to treatment, baseline risk, trajectory, feasibility, and whether a result would alter management.
HOW TO INTERPRET A CANDIDATE RESPONSE ENDPOINT
The clinical uses of a test are not interchangeable. Diagnostic validity asks whether a measure identifies steatosis, MASH, or fibrosis at one time point. Cross-sectional severity describes association with contemporaneous histology or another reference standard. Prognostic validity asks whether a baseline value predicts future liver-related outcomes. Longitudinal responsiveness asks whether within-person change is reproducible and reflects treatment-induced biological change. Association with histological response asks whether change in the noninvasive test tracks change on paired biopsy. A validated threshold for meaningful change additionally requires a prespecified cutoff with acceptable measurement error, external validation, and a clinically or histologically interpretable anchor. Responsiveness alone does not establish surrogacy: A change in a biomarker or imaging measure should not be inferred to represent histological improvement or patient-important clinical benefit unless those relationships have been prospectively demonstrated.
These distinctions are particularly important for magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF), magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), and pediatric fibrosis panels. Strong diagnostic discrimination does not establish short-term responsiveness. Likewise, an association between baseline liver stiffness and later clinical events establishes prognostic value but does not prove that a short-term reduction in stiffness is a valid pediatric treatment endpoint. For longitudinal reporting, four metrics should be kept separate: The achieved on-treatment value, absolute change from baseline, relative change from baseline, and whether a validated low-risk or response threshold was crossed. At present, few such thresholds have been validated in children.
THE THERAPEUTIC LANDSCAPE AND EXPECTED RESPONSE PATTERNS
Lifestyle intervention
Lifestyle intervention remains the foundation of pediatric MASLD treatment and can improve aminotransferases, adiposity, insulin sensitivity, steatosis, and selected histological features[1,13-15]. Responses are variable and depend on treatment intensity, engagement, baseline disease, and the magnitude and durability of adiposity reduction. In controlled pediatric cohorts, histological resolution occurs in a minority, while standard-care follow-up shows that some children improve and others worsen over one to two years[16-18].
Recent pediatric studies provide useful but context-specific longitudinal signals. In a 15-center cohort of 440 children receiving standard care, biochemical improvement was defined as decreases of at least 40% in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and at least 20% in gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), and worsening as increases of at least 20% in both enzymes; outcomes were assessed at 1 year and 2 years[18]. In a secondary analysis of 146 children in the 52-week CyNCh trial, histological improvement was defined as a decrease of at least 2 points in NAFLD Activity Score (NAS) without worsening fibrosis; ALT and GGT changes were associated with paired histological change, and the models were evaluated using data from the 96-week TONIC trial[19]. These criteria are more directly relevant to pediatric longitudinal monitoring than diagnostic cutoffs, but they were derived from selected research cohorts and require external validation before use as universal clinical thresholds.
Metabolic and bariatric surgery
Metabolic and bariatric surgery produces the largest and most durable weight reduction currently available for selected adolescents with severe obesity and is endorsed by pediatric obesity and surgical guidelines[9,20,21]. Independent pediatric studies report improvement in aminotransferases, steatosis, cardiometabolic risk, and, in subsets with paired biopsies, inflammatory activity after surgery[22-24]. Adult randomized and longitudinal studies support substantial MASH resolution and later fibrosis regression, but adult effect sizes and time courses cannot be assumed in children[25-27].
A recent single-center prospective controlled cohort from the author’s group enrolled 42 adolescents with severe obesity and biopsy-confirmed MASLD; 17 underwent vertical sleeve gastrectomy and 25 received comprehensive lifestyle intervention, and 27 completed paired 52-week biopsies[28]. Surgery was associated with greater improvement in histology, ALT, adiposity, and MRI-PDFF, whereas MRE stiffness changed little over one year. These findings are clinically informative but hypothesis-generating. Treatment was not randomized, baseline groups were noncomparable, selection and residual confounding remain possible, the paired-biopsy sample was small, 36% lacked follow-up histology, and the study was conducted at one center. Conservative analyses reduced but could not eliminate those limitations.
The broader pediatric surgical literature is also observational, includes different procedures and biopsy indications, and is vulnerable to referral selection, attrition, and incomplete standardization of follow-up histology. Claims of fibrosis improvement should therefore remain qualified; fibrosis may regress after substantial metabolic improvement, but pediatric evidence is limited and short follow-up may miss both delayed regression and progression. Response assessment after surgery must also capture potential harms and tradeoffs, including micronutrient deficiency, inadequate protein intake, loss of lean tissue, gallbladder disease, reduced bone accrual or bone density, and the need for lifelong supplementation and follow-up[21,29,30].
Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists
Evidence for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists should be separated into three categories. First, randomized adolescent obesity trials demonstrated clinically important weight reduction with semaglutide and liraglutide, but participants were not selected for confirmed MASLD, hepatic endpoints were not the primary focus, baseline ALT was generally low, and liver biopsy, MRI-PDFF, and elastography were not systematically assessed[10,31]. These trials establish obesity efficacy and safety in adolescents, not pediatric MASH efficacy.
Second, pediatric observational reports in youth treated for obesity or type 2 diabetes describe mean ALT improvement, but MASLD ascertainment, treatment indication, co-interventions, and follow-up are heterogeneous, and histological outcomes are unavailable[32,33]. Such studies support feasibility and signal generation but cannot distinguish a direct hepatic effect from effects mediated through weight loss, glycemic improvement, regression to the mean, or selective follow-up.
Third, adult MASH trials provide proof that glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonism can improve liver histology in adults with biopsy-confirmed disease. In the phase 3 ESSENCE trial, semaglutide improved MASH resolution and fibrosis endpoints at 72 weeks, and semaglutide subsequently received an adult indication for noncirrhotic MASH with moderate-to-advanced fibrosis[12,34]. Adult participants, disease phenotype, comorbidity, dosing context, and regulatory endpoints differ from those of growing children. Adult histological or noninvasive thresholds should therefore inform pediatric trial design, not serve as pediatric monitoring targets.
Changes in lean mass require equally careful language. A reduction in absolute lean mass during major weight loss is not synonymous with sarcopenia. Muscle quantity, muscle relative to body size, strength, physical function, growth, nutritional intake, and pubertal stage must be considered separately. The clinically relevant question is whether loss of harmful adiposity is accompanied by proportionate and functionally acceptable tissue change, not whether every kilogram of lean mass is preserved.
Resmetirom and other liver-directed therapies
Resmetirom illustrates the future pediatric therapeutic landscape rather than a current pediatric option. In adults with MASH and fibrosis, a phase 3 trial demonstrated histological efficacy[11]. Resmetirom has not been studied adequately in children, and adult histological endpoints cannot yet be adopted as pediatric monitoring targets. Pediatric pharmacokinetics, dosing, long-term safety, thyroid-axis effects, interactions with normal growth and puberty, reproductive development, and the acceptability of long-term therapy remain unknown. The same principle applies to other emerging liver-directed agents: Pediatric response endpoints must be validated in pediatric trials rather than imported from adult regulatory programs.
HISTOLOGICAL ENDPOINTS
Liver biopsy remains the reference standard for defining steatosis, inflammation, ballooning, and fibrosis, and paired histology underpins therapeutic trial endpoints. The NAS sums steatosis, lobular inflammation, and ballooning, while fibrosis is staged separately. NAS was designed for semiquantitative grading and should not be used as a diagnostic threshold for MASH[35]. Common trial outcomes include a decrease in NAS of at least two points without fibrosis worsening, resolution of steatohepatitis without fibrosis worsening, and fibrosis improvement of at least one stage.
Pediatric histology requires specific nuance. Children may show a portal-predominant pattern with portal inflammation or fibrosis and less conspicuous ballooning than is typical in adults[36]. Histological response therefore cannot be reduced to an adult-pattern assumption. Biopsy samples only a small fraction of a heterogeneous liver, and both sampling variability and interobserver disagreement can alter apparent change, particularly when one-stage fibrosis differences define response[37]. Central reading, reader training, paired-slide review, and prespecified adjudication improve rigor in trials but are rarely available in routine practice.
Repeat biopsy is invasive and often unacceptable solely for monitoring, especially when clinical management would not change. Attrition in paired-biopsy studies can materially bias response estimates. A pragmatic option is to consider biopsy when noninvasive domains remain substantially discordant, when an alternative diagnosis is possible, or when fibrosis staging would change a high-stakes decision. This is expert opinion rather than a validated algorithm. Shared decision-making should account for procedural risk, burden, timing, and whether the expected information will alter treatment.
BIOCHEMICAL ENDPOINTS
ALT is inexpensive, widely available, and responsive enough to support serial monitoring, but it is an imperfect marker of hepatocellular injury and does not directly measure steatosis or fibrosis. Sex-specific upper reference limits of approximately 22 U/L for girls and 26 U/L for boys improve sensitivity compared with many local laboratory limits[38]. Even these values are not universal response thresholds. Age, pubertal stage, adiposity, insulin resistance, biological variation, assay platform, and laboratory calibration can influence interpretation. Normal or mildly elevated ALT does not exclude MASH or clinically important fibrosis[39].
Operationally, ALT should be interpreted with the date, laboratory reference range, treatment exposure, and relevant context. Recent strenuous exercise, intercurrent illness, medication or supplement changes, and other causes of liver injury can produce transient variation. When feasible, repeat testing should use the same laboratory and similar clinical conditions. A practical schedule is to reassess approximately 8-12 weeks after a major treatment initiation or dose change to establish direction, and then every 3-6 months during active management; this interval is pragmatic and should be individualized rather than treated as a validated pediatric standard.
Longitudinal reporting should include the achieved ALT, absolute change in U/L, relative percentage change, and whether a prespecified reference or research threshold was crossed. Dynamic ALT and GGT changes have been associated with paired histological change in pediatric trial cohorts[18,19]. By contrast, the observation that achieved ALT discriminated histological response better than relative change in the author’s 42-participant surgical cohort requires replication[28]. It should be considered preliminary rather than a general principle across lifestyle therapy, surgery, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, or future pharmacotherapy.
The term “biochemical remission” should not be used for a low ALT unless a validated definition is specified. Reaching a sex-specific healthy range is reassuring and may contribute to a composite response, but it does not prove resolution of MASH or fibrosis. Persistent or recurrent elevation should prompt assessment of adherence, treatment exposure, cardiometabolic change, medication effects, and alternative liver disease rather than automatic attribution to MASLD[40].
MRI-PDFF
MRI-PDFF provides a quantitative estimate of liver fat and has strong diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility in pediatric MASLD[41,42]. The approximately 5% fat-fraction threshold used to identify steatosis is a diagnostic convention, not a treatment-response threshold. A change should be reported both as an absolute percentage-point difference and as a relative percentage change. For example, a decrease from 20% to 10% is a 10-percentage-point absolute decrease and a 50% relative decrease; these metrics are not interchangeable. Pediatric-specific clinical and laboratory models have also been evaluated as lower-cost approaches to identify magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-defined steatosis or elevated stiffness. These models showed moderate discrimination for threshold-based classification but weak correlations with exact MRI-PDFF and MRE values, reinforcing that they should not be treated as quantitative substitutes for imaging[43].
Measurement precision depends on acquisition, field strength, reconstruction, region-of-interest strategy, and use of the same scanner and protocol[44]. Small apparent changes near the method’s precision limits may not represent biological response. MRI-PDFF is responsive to change in liver fat and has been associated with histological response in adult trials and in limited pediatric paired-biopsy data[28,42]. In adults, a relative decline of at least 30% is associated with higher odds of histological response[45,46]. This is a useful research benchmark but has not been validated as a clinically meaningful pediatric threshold. In a retrospective cohort of 65 children with paired MRI examinations a mean 27 ± 14 months apart, MRI liver fat fraction decreased in 29% and increased in 25%, whereas stiffness decreased in 20% and increased in 22%; paired histology was not available[42].
MRI-PDFF should therefore be interpreted as a steatosis endpoint. A substantial decrease indicates reduced liver fat but does not by itself prove resolution of inflammation or regression of fibrosis. For specialist-center monitoring, reassessment at approximately 6-12 months can capture meaningful steatosis change after an intensive intervention, provided the result is likely to influence care. Earlier or more frequent imaging may be appropriate in a trial but is rarely justified in routine care.
ELASTOGRAPHY
MRE and VCTE estimate liver stiffness, but their technical performance, prognostic validity, and longitudinal responsiveness must be distinguished. MRE has good cross-sectional performance for advanced fibrosis in children and samples a larger liver volume than VCTE[47,48]. VCTE is faster, less expensive, and more portable, but probe selection, body habitus, operator experience, and reliability criteria affect success and interpretation[49,50]. Controlled attenuation parameter estimates steatosis but is less reproducible than MRI-PDFF in many pediatric settings.
Standardization is essential. Measurements should be obtained under fasting conditions when possible; food intake can transiently increase stiffness. Severe obesity can increase VCTE failure or unreliability and may require an XL probe, while MRE may be limited by scanner bore, motion, or inability to complete breath-holds. Inflammation, cholestasis, hepatic congestion, and acute illness can raise stiffness independently of fibrosis. Serial studies should use the same modality, probe strategy, device, and quality criteria whenever possible[51,52].
Baseline stiffness can be prognostic without being a validated short-term response endpoint. A 2024 adult meta-analysis of 20587 participants found that higher VCTE-derived stiffness was associated with subsequent liver-related events[53]. This supports adult prognostic validity but does not establish that short-term stiffness change is a pediatric treatment-response surrogate. Pediatric longitudinal VCTE studies published in 2026 show that serial parameters may identify progression or track changes associated with adiposity, but externally validated thresholds for meaningful improvement or worsening are not yet available[54,55]. More specifically, one retrospective cohort included 149 children with a mean follow-up of 1.4 years and found marked within-person variability in controlled attenuation parameter and liver stiffness; continuous changes were associated with ALT and GGT, but categorical biochemical improvement or worsening was not predicted[54]. A second retrospective cohort included 192 children younger than 18 years with at least two VCTE examinations a mean 16.8 ± 11.1 months apart; changes in body mass index Z score were positively associated with changes in liver stiffness and controlled attenuation parameter[55]. Neither cohort included paired histology, so neither establishes VCTE change as a histological surrogate.
Fibrosis biology also changes more slowly than steatosis or aminotransferases. In the author’s one-year surgical cohort, marked changes in weight, ALT, and MRI-PDFF occurred without a clear between-group MRE difference[28]. That finding may reflect slower fibrosis remodeling, limited precision, small sample size, or residual inflammatory effects rather than failure of the modality. In stable clinical care, repeating elastography approximately every 12-24 months is a reasonable pragmatic approach, with earlier reassessment for high-risk disease or a major clinical change. No pediatric minimum important change has been established.
SERUM BIOMARKERS AND COMPOSITE PANELS
Routine composite scores are attractive because they are inexpensive, but most were designed for cross-sectional fibrosis classification rather than longitudinal response. Adult-derived scores such as fibrosis-4 perform poorly in children because age is embedded in the calculation. Pediatric NAFLD Fibrosis Index and Pediatric NAFLD Fibrosis Score results vary across cohorts[56-58]. Newer models, including Fibrosis in Pediatrics with NAFLD and Pediatric Fibrosis Score, improve cross-sectional risk stratification or exclusion of significant fibrosis, but neither has been validated as a treatment-response endpoint[59,60].
Direct or matrix-turnover biomarkers provide additional biological information. The enhanced liver fibrosis score has shown association with pediatric histology and treatment response in a trial cohort, but pediatric cutoffs, analytical comparability, and real-world longitudinal performance remain incompletely established[61]. N-terminal pro-peptide of type III collagen reflects type III collagen formation and is higher with advanced fibrosis in some pediatric cohorts, yet age and the pubertal growth spurt materially influence concentrations[62]. Cytokeratin-18 fragments reflect hepatocyte apoptosis, but assay heterogeneity, limited availability, overlap across disease stages, and inconsistent pediatric validation constrain routine use.
These biomarkers should currently be viewed as adjuncts or research endpoints. Longitudinal studies should specify the assay platform, specimen handling, biological variation, timing relative to treatment and puberty, absolute and relative change, and whether change exceeds analytical variation. A panel that classifies fibrosis at baseline cannot be assumed to quantify fibrosis regression. Biomarkers may help select children for advanced imaging or biopsy, but they do not replace clinical assessment or validated imaging.
BODY COMPOSITION, MUSCLE, AND SARCOPENIC OBESITY
Body composition is relevant because adipose tissue and skeletal muscle are both determinants and consequences of MASLD treatment. Low muscle mass relative to body size has been associated with greater pediatric liver disease severity, and longitudinal changes in fat mass track biochemical change[63-66]. However, terminology must be precise. “Low muscle mass” describes quantity below an age-, sex-, size-, and maturation-referenced standard. “Sarcopenia” generally requires low muscle quantity together with impaired strength or physical function. “Sarcopenic obesity” denotes coexisting excess adiposity and sarcopenia. No accepted pediatric diagnostic criteria or outcome-linked cutoffs exist, and adult consensus definitions should not be imported directly[67,68]. In a single-center retrospective cohort of 258 patients younger than 20 years with at least two bioelectrical impedance analyses a median 12 months apart, biochemical regression was defined as ALT normalization or a decrease of more than 50%; a decrease in fat mass index, but not skeletal muscle mass index, was associated with greater odds of regression[66].
Bioelectrical impedance analysis is inexpensive and repeatable, but results depend on hydration, recent food and exercise, device equations, electrode configuration, and body geometry. Serial measurements should use the same device and standardized preparation, and small changes should be interpreted against device-specific precision; pediatric MASLD data demonstrate that a least significant change is needed to separate measurement error from biological change[69]. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry offers regional fat and lean soft tissue estimates with low radiation exposure, but it does not directly measure skeletal muscle, and hydration, body size, and instrument differences affect results. Handgrip strength is simple but depends on age, sex, maturation, hand size, motivation, and technique. The D3-creatine dilution method estimates skeletal muscle mass more directly, but pediatric reference data and routine availability are limited[70]. In children with obesity and fatty liver disease, bioelectrical impedance analysis-derived skeletal muscle and fat measures correlated strongly with MRI-derived psoas muscle area and abdominal fat measures, supporting its use as a practical body-composition alternative in selected settings when MRI is not feasible[71].
Accordingly, body-composition methods should not yet be presented as universal routine endpoints. At minimum, clinical assessment should report height velocity, growth-adjusted adiposity, dietary protein adequacy, physical activity, and symptoms or signs of functional decline. Specialist centers may add standardized bioimpedance or dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and handgrip strength when results will influence nutrition or exercise management. Research should pair muscle quantity with strength or function and use age-, sex-, and pubertal-stage references.
This distinction is especially important after surgery or pharmacotherapy. Substantial weight loss may reduce both fat and lean tissue, while surgery can additionally affect micronutrient status and bone accrual[30,72-74]. The desired response is reduced harmful adiposity, improved hepatic and cardiometabolic health, preserved functional muscle, and normal growth, not maximal weight loss at any cost. Molecular measures of muscle-liver crosstalk, including myokines, hepatokines, and proteomic signatures, remain promising research tools rather than clinical substitutes[75,76].
PATIENT-CENTERED, CARDIOMETABOLIC, GROWTH, AND SAFETY OUTCOMES
A liver-centered definition alone is insufficient for a chronic pediatric disease embedded in obesity and development. Response assessment should include glycemia, lipids, blood pressure, sleep apnea, physical function, growth velocity, pubertal progression, and treatment-specific safety. These domains may improve even when one hepatic marker changes little, or may worsen despite weight reduction. For surgery, longitudinal surveillance includes protein and micronutrient intake, anemia, vitamin deficiencies, bone health, gastrointestinal symptoms, and reintervention. For glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, monitoring includes gastrointestinal tolerance, hydration, gallbladder symptoms, glycemia when relevant, nutritional adequacy, and growth.
Patient-reported outcomes should capture quality of life, psychological health, stigma, treatment burden, adherence, family priorities, school participation, and acceptability of repeated testing. Children with fatty liver disease and obesity can experience impaired quality of life, but no pediatric MASLD-specific patient-reported outcome has been validated as a universal response endpoint[77]. Generic validated pediatric instruments can be used, provided the construct and timing are specified. A treatment that improves MRI-PDFF but creates intolerable burden or compromises growth is not a complete clinical success.
EQUITY AND FEASIBILITY
Access to effective treatment and to response measurement is uneven. Insurance coverage, geography, language, transportation, referral practices, family resources, and clinician attitudes influence access to intensive lifestyle programs, pharmacotherapy, surgery, and specialist care[8,78]. MRI-PDFF, MRE, research biomarkers, and repeated body-composition testing are concentrated in tertiary centers. A response definition that requires these tools for every child would systematically exclude many populations and could widen disparities.
Feasibility should therefore be treated as a measurement property rather than an afterthought. Minimum clinical assessment must rely on widely available measures, while advanced modalities should be added when they answer a defined question. Trials should report missingness, technical failure, cost and burden, language accessibility, insurance discontinuation, and representation across race, ethnicity, socioeconomic position, rurality, disability, and sex. Equity also requires distinguishing lack of biological response from inadequate access, interrupted treatment, or inability to complete monitoring.
A THREE-TIER, TREATMENT-AWARE FRAMEWORK
Because response domains change at different rates, no single composite score is ready for routine use (Figure 1). Table 1 summarizes the evidence and limitations of candidate endpoints. Table 2 proposes three tiers. The minimum clinical tier is feasible in most settings and includes treatment exposure, growth-adjusted adiposity, ALT and related laboratory trends, cardiometabolic health, growth and puberty, safety, adherence, and patient-centered outcomes. The specialist-center tier adds quantitative steatosis or stiffness imaging and standardized body-composition or function measures when they are available and clinically actionable. The research tier adds paired histology when ethically justified, molecular biomarkers, advanced muscle measures, standardized imaging protocols, and prespecified patient-reported outcomes. This three-tier structure is author-proposed pragmatic guidance; it has not undergone external validation or formal consensus development and should not be interpreted as a validated clinical algorithm.
Figure 1 Multidimensional, treatment-aware framework for assessing response in pediatric metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease.
No single biomarker defines response. Liver injury, steatosis, fibrosis risk, adiposity and muscle, cardiometabolic and growth outcomes, and patient-centered safety outcomes should be interpreted separately, with attention to treatment modality, time horizon, growth and puberty, technical conditions, feasibility, and equity. A three-tier approach aligns minimum clinical assessment, specialist-center assessment, and research endpoints. The framework and reassessment timing shown are author-proposed pragmatic guidance and have not been externally validated. MASLD: Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease; ALT: Alanine aminotransferase; GGT: Gamma-glutamyl transferase; MRI-PDFF: Magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction; MRE: Magnetic resonance elastography; VCTE: Vibration-controlled transient elastography; GLP-1: Glucagon-like peptide-1; BP: Blood pressure.
Table 2 Three-tier, treatment-aware framework for response assessment in pediatric metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease.
Tier
Purpose and setting
Core domains
Suggested measures
Timing
Interpretation principles
Tier 1: Minimum clinical assessment
All care settings; establish direction, safety, and treatment exposure
Treatment dose/exposure; height and growth velocity; %BMIp95 or BMI trajectory; ALT, AST, GGT; glucose/HbA1c, lipids, blood pressure; symptoms, quality of life, burden, physical function
Baseline; approximately 8-12 weeks after major change; then every 3-6 months during active treatment
Report achieved value, absolute change, relative change, and threshold crossing separately. Do not label normal ALT as histological remission. Evaluate alternative causes and access barriers
Tier 2: Specialist-center assessment
Clarify steatosis/fibrosis risk, discordance, or tissue consequences when results will change care
Quantitative steatosis; stiffness; standardized body composition and function; modality-specific safety
MRI-PDFF when available; MRE or standardized VCTE; BIA or DXA plus handgrip/functional assessment; nutrition and bone assessment after surgery
MRI-PDFF approximately 6-12 months after intensive intervention; elastography approximately 12-24 months in stable care; individualized sooner for high risk
Use the same scanner/device/probe and standardized fasting/quality criteria. Interpret liver fat, stiffness, adiposity, and muscle as separate axes. Adult thresholds are not automatically pediatric thresholds
Tier 3: Research endpoints
Trials and mechanistic cohorts; validate meaningful longitudinal change and core outcomes
Histology; advanced imaging; serum/molecular biomarkers; direct muscle measures; standardized patient-reported outcomes; feasibility and equity
Paired biopsy when ethically justified; centralized imaging; ELF, PRO-C3, cytokeratin-18 or omics; D3-creatine or detailed DXA; prespecified quality-of-life and treatment-burden instruments
Prespecified by biological timescale and intervention; generally 6-24 months with repeated exposure and safety measures
Anchor change to histology, function, clinical risk, or patient-important benefit; quantify measurement error and missingness; validate across puberty, treatment modalities, and diverse populations
Interpretation should be treatment-specific and time-aware. After intensive lifestyle therapy, changes are usually gradual and closely linked to sustained behavior and adiposity change. After bariatric surgery, weight, ALT, and MRI-PDFF may change rapidly, while stiffness and bone outcomes require longer observation. After glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapy, weight and glycemia may improve before liver-specific benefit is established, and lean tissue, symptoms, adherence, and treatment interruption require attention. For each modality, achieved values, absolute change, relative change, threshold crossing, adverse effects, and treatment exposure should be reported separately.
Discordance is expected rather than exceptional. A falling ALT with persistently high MRI-PDFF may indicate partial response, while falling MRI-PDFF with unchanged stiffness may reflect rapid steatosis improvement but slower fibrosis remodeling. Conversely, low ALT with rising stiffness requires review of technical quality, alternative causes, and fibrosis risk. Biopsy may be considered when discordance is persistent and a histological answer would change management, but that approach remains expert opinion.
LIMITATIONS OF THE REVIEW
This purposefully selected narrative review has limitations. Single-author screening and extraction may have introduced selective inclusion, interpretation error, or missed studies, and the absence of duplicate review, a PRISMA flow count, formal risk-of-bias assessment, and formal certainty grading limits reproducibility and precludes systematic-review claims. Publication bias is also possible.
The pediatric evidence is heterogeneous in population, intervention, follow-up, measurement protocol, and response definition, and some inferences rely on adult studies because pediatric longitudinal data remain sparse. Several surgical and body-composition observations derive from related author-group cohorts and require independent replication. Accordingly, the proposed intervals and three-tier framework are hypothesis-generating pragmatic guidance that require prospective pediatric validation and formal consensus development before standardization.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS: A PEDIATRIC CORE OUTCOME SET
The field needs a consensus pediatric MASLD core outcome set developed with youth, caregivers, clinicians, methodologists, regulators, and payers. At minimum, it should include histological activity and fibrosis for trials in which biopsy is justified; ALT and GGT; MRI-PDFF; liver stiffness with modality-specific quality criteria; growth-adjusted adiposity; glycemia, lipids, and blood pressure; growth and puberty; muscle quantity and function; patient-reported quality of life and treatment burden; adherence and exposure; treatment-specific safety; feasibility; and equity.
Development should proceed through systematic evidence review, stakeholder interviews, Delphi consensus, and prospective validation. Candidate thresholds must exceed measurement error and be anchored to histological, clinical, functional, or patient-important change. Pediatric studies should directly compare achieved values, absolute change, relative change, and threshold crossing. They should also establish the minimum interval at which each endpoint is responsive, account for puberty and growth, standardize fasting and acquisition conditions, and examine whether response definitions perform similarly across treatments and populations.
Future comparative-effectiveness studies should evaluate surgery, pharmacotherapy, and structured lifestyle treatment with common endpoints while recognizing that randomization may be constrained by indication and family preference[79]. Pediatric trials of liver-directed drugs and incretin-based therapies should not rely solely on adult extrapolation. A core outcome set would reduce selective reporting, improve comparability, and clarify when a noninvasive endpoint is merely diagnostic, truly responsive, or sufficiently validated to guide care.
CONCLUSION
Treatment response in pediatric MASLD cannot currently be defined by a single biomarker. ALT, MRI-PDFF, liver stiffness, histology, cardiometabolic health, body composition, growth, safety, and patient-centered outcomes capture complementary domains and may change at different rates. Diagnostic accuracy or prognostic association does not by itself establish longitudinal responsiveness, and validated pediatric thresholds for meaningful change remain limited. Assessment should therefore be multidimensional, treatment-specific, growth-aware, patient-centered, and adapted to clinical context and resource availability. The central goal is to identify hepatic and cardiometabolic improvement accompanied by healthy growth and preserved muscle function, rather than to equate response with weight loss alone. The proposed framework and reassessment intervals are pragmatic author guidance rather than validated pediatric standards and should be prospectively evaluated before broad adoption.
Xanthakos SA, Ibrahim SH, Adams K, Kohli R, Sathya P, Sundaram S, Vos MB, Dhawan A, Caprio S, Behling CA, Schwimmer JB. AASLD Practice Statement on the evaluation and management of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease in children.Hepatology. 2025;82:1352-1394.
[RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text][Cited by in Crossref: 41][Cited by in RCA: 62][Article Influence: 62.0][Reference Citation Analysis (2)]
Rinella ME, Lazarus JV, Ratziu V, Francque SM, Sanyal AJ, Kanwal F, Romero D, Abdelmalek MF, Anstee QM, Arab JP, Arrese M, Bataller R, Beuers U, Boursier J, Bugianesi E, Byrne CD, Castro Narro GE, Chowdhury A, Cortez-Pinto H, Cryer DR, Cusi K, El-Kassas M, Klein S, Eskridge W, Fan J, Gawrieh S, Guy CD, Harrison SA, Kim SU, Koot BG, Korenjak M, Kowdley KV, Lacaille F, Loomba R, Mitchell-Thain R, Morgan TR, Powell EE, Roden M, Romero-Gómez M, Silva M, Singh SP, Sookoian SC, Spearman CW, Tiniakos D, Valenti L, Vos MB, Wong VW, Xanthakos S, Yilmaz Y, Younossi Z, Hobbs A, Villota-Rivas M, Newsome PN; NAFLD Nomenclature consensus group. A multisociety Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature.Hepatology. 2023;78:1966-1986.
[PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text]
Lavine JE, Schwimmer JB, Van Natta ML, Molleston JP, Murray KF, Rosenthal P, Abrams SH, Scheimann AO, Sanyal AJ, Chalasani N, Tonascia J, Ünalp A, Clark JM, Brunt EM, Kleiner DE, Hoofnagle JH, Robuck PR; Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network. Effect of vitamin E or metformin for treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in children and adolescents: the TONIC randomized controlled trial.JAMA. 2011;305:1659-1668.
[RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Full Text (PDF)][Cited by in Crossref: 969][Cited by in RCA: 881][Article Influence: 58.7][Reference Citation Analysis (6)]
Newton KP, Jayasekera D, Blackford AL, Behling C, Wilson LA, Fishbein MH, Molleston JP, Xanthakos SA, Vos MB, Schwimmer JB; NASH CRN. Longitudinal response to standard of care in pediatric metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: Rates of improvement and worsening, and factors associated with outcomes.Hepatology. 2025;82:1198-1210.
[RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Full Text (PDF)][Cited by in Crossref: 13][Cited by in RCA: 11][Article Influence: 11.0][Reference Citation Analysis (2)]
Oei K, Johnston BC, Ball GDC, Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Usman A, Sherifali D, Esmaeilinezhad Z, Merdad R, Dettmer E, Erdstein J, Langer JC, Birken C, Henderson M, Moore SA, Morrison KM, Hamilton J; Steering Committee for Updating the Canadian Clinical Practice Guideline for Managing Pediatric Obesity. Effectiveness of surgical interventions for managing obesity in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis framed using minimal important difference estimates based on GRADE guidance to inform a clinical practice guideline.Pediatr Obes. 2024;19:e13119.
[RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text][Cited by in Crossref: 6][Cited by in RCA: 6][Article Influence: 3.0][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Sundaram SS, Kelsey M, Nadeau KJ, Cooper E, Sokol RJ, Ma Y, Ben Abdallah M, Chaidez A, Inge TH. Resolution of Biochemical and Histologic Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD) in Adolescents with Severe Obesity after Metabolic Bariatric Surgery.J Pediatr. 2026;291:114944.
[RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text][Cited by in Crossref: 1][Cited by in RCA: 4][Article Influence: 4.0][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Verrastro O, Panunzi S, Castagneto-Gissey L, De Gaetano A, Lembo E, Capristo E, Guidone C, Angelini G, Pennestrì F, Sessa L, Vecchio FM, Riccardi L, Zocco MA, Boskoski I, Casella-Mariolo JR, Marini P, Pompili M, Casella G, Fiori E, Rubino F, Bornstein SR, Raffaelli M, Mingrone G. Bariatric-metabolic surgery versus lifestyle intervention plus best medical care in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (BRAVES): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial.Lancet. 2023;401:1786-1797.
[RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text][Cited by in Crossref: 278][Cited by in RCA: 268][Article Influence: 89.3][Reference Citation Analysis (4)]
Yodoshi T, Ollberding NJ, McNeill M, Ley SL, Kirk S, Kleiner DE, Arce-Clachar AC, Bramlage K, Inge TH, Helmrath MA, Cecil KM, Trout AT, Elder DA, Mouzaki M, Xanthakos SA. Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy Versus Comprehensive Lifestyle Intervention for Adolescents With Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease: A Prospective Controlled Cohort Study.Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2026;64:758-769.
[RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Full Text (PDF)][Cited by in Crossref: 4][Cited by in RCA: 4][Article Influence: 4.0][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Inge TH, Zeller MH, Jenkins TM, Helmrath M, Brandt ML, Michalsky MP, Harmon CM, Courcoulas A, Horlick M, Xanthakos SA, Dolan L, Mitsnefes M, Barnett SJ, Buncher R; Teen-LABS Consortium. Perioperative outcomes of adolescents undergoing bariatric surgery: the Teen-Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery (Teen-LABS) study.JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168:47-53.
[RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text][Cited by in Crossref: 225][Cited by in RCA: 231][Article Influence: 19.3][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Misra M, Singhal V, Carmine B, Bose A, Kelsey MM, Stanford FC, Bram J, Aidlen J, Inge T, Bouxsein ML, Bredella MA. Bone outcomes following sleeve gastrectomy in adolescents and young adults with obesity versus non-surgical controls.Bone. 2020;134:115290.
[RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text][Cited by in Crossref: 13][Cited by in RCA: 35][Article Influence: 5.8][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Middleton MS, Van Natta ML, Heba ER, Alazraki A, Trout AT, Masand P, Brunt EM, Kleiner DE, Doo E, Tonascia J, Lavine JE, Shen W, Hamilton G, Schwimmer JB, Sirlin CB; NASH Clinical Research Network. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging hepatic proton density fat fraction in pediatric nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.Hepatology. 2018;67:858-872.
[RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Full Text (PDF)][Cited by in Crossref: 138][Cited by in RCA: 130][Article Influence: 16.3][Reference Citation Analysis (4)]
Yokoo T, Serai SD, Pirasteh A, Bashir MR, Hamilton G, Hernando D, Hu HH, Hetterich H, Kühn JP, Kukuk GM, Loomba R, Middleton MS, Obuchowski NA, Song JS, Tang A, Wu X, Reeder SB, Sirlin CB; RSNA-QIBA PDFF Biomarker Committee. Linearity, Bias, and Precision of Hepatic Proton Density Fat Fraction Measurements by Using MR Imaging: A Meta-Analysis.Radiology. 2018;286:486-498.
[RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Full Text (PDF)][Cited by in Crossref: 282][Cited by in RCA: 281][Article Influence: 35.1][Reference Citation Analysis (1)]
Loomba R, Neuschwander-Tetri BA, Sanyal A, Chalasani N, Diehl AM, Terrault N, Kowdley K, Dasarathy S, Kleiner D, Behling C, Lavine J, Van Natta M, Middleton M, Tonascia J, Sirlin C; NASH Clinical Research Network. Multicenter Validation of Association Between Decline in MRI-PDFF and Histologic Response in NASH.Hepatology. 2020;72:1219-1229.
[RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text][Cited by in Crossref: 102][Cited by in RCA: 129][Article Influence: 21.5][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Schwimmer JB, Behling C, Angeles JE, Paiz M, Durelle J, Africa J, Newton KP, Brunt EM, Lavine JE, Abrams SH, Masand P, Krishnamurthy R, Wong K, Ehman RL, Yin M, Glaser KJ, Dzyubak B, Wolfson T, Gamst AC, Hooker J, Haufe W, Schlein A, Hamilton G, Middleton MS, Sirlin CB. Magnetic resonance elastography measured shear stiffness as a biomarker of fibrosis in pediatric nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.Hepatology. 2017;66:1474-1485.
[RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Full Text (PDF)][Cited by in Crossref: 120][Cited by in RCA: 112][Article Influence: 12.4][Reference Citation Analysis (1)]
P V Alves V, T Trout A, Dewit M, Mouzaki M, Arce-Clachar AC, S Bramlage K, R Dillman J, A Xanthakos S. Clinical Performance of Transient Elastography With Comparison to Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Ultrasound, and Biopsy in Children and Adolescents With Known or Suspected Fatty Liver Disease.Child Obes. 2023;19:461-469.
[RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text][Cited by in RCA: 14][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Wang A, Blackford AL, Behling C, Wilson LA, Newton KP, Xanthakos SA, Fishbein MH, Vos MB, Mouzaki M, Molleston JP, Jain AK, Hertel P, Harlow Adams K, Schwimmer JB; NASH CRN. Development of Fibro-PeN, a clinical prediction model for moderate-to-severe fibrosis in children with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.Hepatology. 2024;79:1381-1392.
[RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Full Text (PDF)][Cited by in Crossref: 22][Cited by in RCA: 20][Article Influence: 10.0][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Speakman A, Hitchcock K, Romantic E, Quiambao V, Lepolt A, Ley S, Arce-Clachar AC, Bramlage K, Fei L, Sun Q, Xanthakos S, Mouzaki M. Longitudinal Links between Changes in Body Composition and Liver Disease Severity in Children and Adolescents with Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease.J Pediatr. 2025;276:114301.
[RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Full Text (PDF)][Cited by in Crossref: 4][Cited by in RCA: 7][Article Influence: 7.0][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Donini LM, Busetto L, Bischoff SC, Cederholm T, Ballesteros-Pomar MD, Batsis JA, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Dicker D, Frara S, Frühbeck G, Genton L, Gepner Y, Giustina A, Gonzalez MC, Han HS, Heymsfield SB, Higashiguchi T, Laviano A, Lenzi A, Nyulasi I, Parrinello E, Poggiogalle E, Prado CM, Salvador J, Rolland Y, Santini F, Serlie MJ, Shi H, Sieber CC, Siervo M, Vettor R, Villareal DT, Volkert D, Yu J, Zamboni M, Barazzoni R. Definition and diagnostic criteria for sarcopenic obesity: ESPEN and EASO consensus statement.Clin Nutr. 2022;41:990-1000.
[RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text][Cited by in Crossref: 307][Cited by in RCA: 368][Article Influence: 92.0][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Speakman A, Hitchcock K, Romantic E, Quiambao V, Lepolt A, Arce-Clachar AC, Bramlage K, Fei L, Sun Q, Xanthakos S, Mouzaki M. Least significant change with repeat bioelectrical impedance analysis measurements in children with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: A descriptive cohort study.JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2025;49:200-206.
[RCA] [PubMed] [DOI] [Full Text] [Full Text (PDF)][Cited by in RCA: 1][Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
Corresponding Author's Membership in Professional Societies: American College of Gastroenterology; American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Specialty type: Gastroenterology and hepatology
Country of origin: United States
Peer-review report’s classification
Scientific quality: Grade B
Novelty: Grade B
Creativity or innovation: Grade B
Scientific significance: Grade B
P-Reviewer: Fernandez-Rodriguez CM, Chief Physician, PhD, Professor, Spain S-Editor: Hu XY L-Editor: A P-Editor: Wang WB
