Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Characteristics of the study subjects.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Logistic regression analyses of factors related to NAFLD in the development dataset.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Performance of NAFLD screening scores: development and external validation datasets.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Figure 1.

Estimated prevalence of NAFLD according to screening score: development and external validation datasets.

A, development dataset (N = 15676); B, external validation dataset (N = 66868).

More »

Figure 1 Expand

Figure 2.

Sample self-assessment screening questionnaire.

More »

Figure 2 Expand

Figure 3.

Average scores for the simple and comprehensive models according to fatty liver grade determined by hepatic ultrasound or NAFLD fibrosis score.

Average scores for A) the simple model or B) the comprehensive model according to fatty liver grade determined by hepatic ultrasound. All P values of comparison between any groups are <0.001. *P for trend are <0.001. Average scores for C) the simple model or D) the comprehensive model according to the fatty liver conditions defined by NAFLD fibrosis score. Subjects with negative results by NAFLD fibrosis score (N = 12046) could be excluded from having advanced fibrosis and subjects with positive results of NAFLD fibrosis score (N = 131) are highly likely to have advanced fibrosis. All P values of comparison between any groups are <0.001. *P for trend are <0.001. Data are shown as mean with SD.

More »

Figure 3 Expand