BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2026.
World J Hepatol. Jan 27, 2026; 18(1): 111534
Published online Jan 27, 2026. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v18.i1.111534
Table 1 Steatotic liver disease nomenclature
Nomenclature
Definition
NAFLDNonalcoholic fatty liver disease is defined by the presence of ≥ 5% of macrovesicular steatosis and the absence of an identified alternative diagnosis, as well as a significant ongoing or recent alcohol consumption (defined as < 30 g/day for men and < 20 g/day for women)
NASHPresence of inflammation and cellular injury expressed by ballooning
MAFLDPresence of steatosis evidenced by histology, imaging, or blood biomarker in addition to one of the following criteria: Overweight/obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, or evidence of metabolic syndrome
SLDPresence of steatosis diagnosed histologically or by imaging techniques
MASLDPresence of SLD associated with at least one cardiometabolic risk factor and no other identified cause, alcohol consumption should be less than 20 g/day for women and 30 g/day for men, previously called NAFLD
MASHPresence of MASLD and cellular inflammation and/or injury, previously mentioned as NASH
Met-ALDMet-ALD was recently proposed, defined as the presence of SLD and alcohol consumption between 20-50 g/day in women and 30-60 g/day in men
Table 2 Parameters for noninvasive assessment of advanced fibrosis in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease
NIM
Rule-in cutoff
Rule-out cutoff
AUROC1
Strengths and limitations
Biomarkers
APRI< 0.5> 1.50.74False positive in patients with alternative causes of thrombocytopenia
FIB-4< 1.32; < 1.67≥ 2.67; ≥ 3.4830.84No added cost; low accuracy in patients younger than 35 years; low specificity in those older than 65 years
NFS< -1.44≥ 0.6720.82No added cost; not accurate in age < 35 years, people with obesity and type 2 diabetes Restricted use to MASLD
ELF< 7.7; < 7.73≥ 9.8; ≥ 11.330.83Cost and not widely available; less useful for early fibrosis
Imaging techniques
VCTE< 8 kPa; < 8 kPa3≥ 12 kPa; ≥ 20 kPa30.9Point of care, possibility of steatosis degree evaluation; necessity of specific device; confounded by active hepatitis, food intake, congestive heart failure, biliary obstruction, amyloidosis, ascites; less applicable and reliable in severe obesity (especially with M probe)
pSWE (ARFI)< 1.3 m/second> 2.1 m/second0.8-0.9Integration into conventional ultrasound systems, which enables a comprehensive evaluation of the liver at the same time; cut points not well validated; Probably affected by the same confounders as VCTE, though the success rate is higher than VCTE in obese patients
2D-SWE< 8 kPa> 12 kPa0.80-0.98Integration into conventional ultrasound systems, which enables a comprehensive evaluation of the liver at the same time; cut points not well validated; probably affected by the same confounders as VCTE
MRE< 2.55 kPa; < 3 kPa3≥ 3.63kPa; ≥ 5 kPa30.89-0.96Superior performance in detecting early-stage fibrosis; integration into routine liver MRI allows both fibrosis staging and surveillance of other liver pathologies, such as HCC; cost, not widely available; probably affected by the same confounders as VCTE and iron content; some patients may have contraindications to magnetic resonance imaging or have claustrophobia