Abstract:The term non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) was coined in 1980 to characterize a disease similar to alcoholic fatty liver disease that developed in patients without a history of excessive alcohol intake.[1] Morphologically, NAFLD is characterized by excess fatty infiltration of the liver in the absence of known causes of liver disease (eg, alcohol, autoimmune liver disease, viral hepatitis, etc). The clinical manifestations of NAFLD (both hepatic and extrahepatic) depend on the outcome of complex interactions between its primary drivers including poor lifestyle habits and diet, a dysfunctional microbiota, genetic predisposition, and environmental cues that result in metabolic dysfunction and liver disease. However, bringing all patients with their markedly different clinical courses under the NAFLD umbrella belies its complexity and implies a homogeneous disease state that then negatively impacts clinical management and a deeper understanding of pathogenesis. With advances in current knowledge on the spectrum of fatty liver diseases, it is apparent that the four-decade-old outdated term NAFLD can no longer serve to usefully describe a highly heterogeneous disease. The disease as we understand it today not only impacts patients who consume alcohol and those who do not, but also potentially impacts all patients with any form of liver disease, by acting as a disease modifier.[2] NAFLD is inherently a disease defined first and foremost by the exclusion of excess alcohol intake. However, even this exclusion is problematic as what defines “excess alcohol” intake is uncertain and to date has been defined by expert opinion rather than hard data.[3] Indeed, more recent information suggests that there are no safe limits for alcohol nor is there a data-driven threshold of consumption that does not over the long term, increase the risk of liver disease.[4] Moreover, a recent study suggests that some gut microbiota produce alcohol and can contribute to liver damage.[5] The explicit requirement to rule out competing etiologies such as viral hepatitis or immune-mediated liver diseases, complicates the diagnostic process at the coalface, and subliminally implies that metabolic dysfunction does not contribute to the natural history or progression of disease such as viral hepatitis once they have been labeled as such. This is manifestly untrue when there is a significant body of literature suggesting that alcohol-associated liver disease progresses more rapidly in the context of metabolic dysfunction and obesity, as also those with hepatitis C or B.[6,7] In addition, for the clinician, the varied diagnostic thresholds for alcohol ingestion in published reports blurs the line between non-alcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) and alcoholic fatty liver. Apart from these cogent scientific reasons for the lack of validity of the term NAFLD, it must be recognized that the term “alcoholic” in the name, bring with it stigmatizing social constructs and societal norms. To address these issues, a consensus was recently reached by an international expert panel for a name change from NAFLD to metabolic associated fatty liver disease or “MAFLD.”[2] Subsequently, a new set of diagnostic criteria for MAFLD was proposed to better reflect current knowledge of the disease.[8] These criteria are based on the presence of hepatic steatosis in the presence of one or more of overweight/obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, or evidence of metabolic dysregulation. The new definition is a landmark in hepatology bringing a new way of thinking about diseases of the liver that are associated with fat deposition and metabolic dysfunction. Importantly, MAFLD brings the liver disease into closer alignment with our current understanding of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and systems biology. Moreover, for clinicians, the definition simplifies the diagnostic process by using “positive” criteria rather than exclusionary ones and establishes a conceptual framework grounded in science for considering other etiologies that might contribute to fatty liver diseases. In doing so, it is now possible to embrace the heterogeneity of MAFLD not only in patients where metabolic dysfunction is the only driver, but also patients with other liver diseases where the same dysfunction can alter the outcome of the diseases. Clearly, within the corpus of the term “metabolic dysfunction”, we can also now move towards greater disease subtyping that can ultimately lead to precision medicines based on a systems narrative. Another important difference is that NAFLD, the old term comprises only simple steatosis and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. With the new terminology, MAFLD is viewed as a disease process where simple steatosis (MAFLD with no inflammation and fibrosis) merges into MAFLD with for example grade 1 inflammation and stage 2 fibrosis, to MAFLD with grade 0 inflammation and stage 4 fibrosis. In other words, it captures the full spectrum of the disease. Moreover, “cryptogenic cirrhosis” and lean MAFLD can now be diagnosed by physiological and metabolic criteria rather than being viewed as completely separate entities. Not to be forgotten, the new nomenclature circumvents the stigmatization associated with “alcoholic” by reducing etiological competition between purely alcoholic and metabolic dysfunction related liver disease. Today, MAFLD is recognized as a highly prevalent disease affecting one in four people globally and is the leading cause of chronic liver disease in the United States and Europe.[9] The prevalence of MAFLD is following a similar trajectory in the Middle East and Asia, with China having the highest incidence and projected future burden of 314 million cases by 2030.[10,11] Unchallenged and un-tackled, MAFLD has the potential to become the most common cause of liver cancer, liver failure and liver transplantation in China, creating a potentially enormous cost to society and patients and their families. Consistently, outside China, the direct annual medical costs of MAFLD was estimated to exceed $100 billion in the United States and €35 billion in Europe (The United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy).[12] While there is an obvious need to reduce disease burden, public health responses to MAFLD are sub-optimal. For instance, a cross-sectional survey conducted in 2019 of 29 European countries (Norway, Switzerland, and all European Union countries except for Malta) revealed that none had written strategies or action plans for this disease.[13] This lack of response can, we believe, be partially attributed to differences in perception of the disease due to an outdated nomenclature and definition. In Europe for instance, alcohol is regarded as the primary cause of chronic liver disease.[14] Similarly, while deaths due to non-communicable diseases are 30 times more than human immunodeficiency virus, it receives 17 times less funding.[15] Therefore, public strategies are understandably focused on this rather than MAFLD and it is not helped by the overlapping disease features. Indeed, it could be argued that eliminating or effectively managing MAFLD will go a long way to reduce the health burden and societal costs of alcohol-associated liver disease as the two frequently co-exist and synergistically contribute to both hepatic and extrahepatic adverse outcomes. Undoubtedly, the renaming of NAFLD to MAFLD is a defining moment and serves as a catalytic call to action that will result in turbocharging systematic improvements in disease awareness, advocacy, research, and through this, clinical management. Given the potential for greater good most importantly for patients affected by liver diseases, widespread adoption of the new definition will first be required by patients, practitioners, medical organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory agencies. Already, such momentum is seen in the various editorials published on these two landmark reports,[16–19] and moves by national and regional societies the world to develop guidelines based on this terminology and definition and new ways of conceptualizing and managing this disease. While global endorsement of MAFLD is expected to take time, it is nevertheless a necessary step toward ensuring success in tackling the disease. Funding Mohammed Eslam and Jacob George are supported by the Robert W. Storr Bequest to the Sydney Medical Foundation, University of Sydney; a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) Program Grant (No. APP1053206 and APP1149976) and Project grants (No. APP1107178 and APP1108422). Ming-Hua Zheng is supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81500665), High Level Creative Talents from Department of Public Health in Zhejiang Province and Project of New Century 551 Talent Nurturing in Wenzhou. Conflicts of interest None.

Abstract:Global survey of stigma among physicians and patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver diseaseJournal of HepatologyVol. 80Issue 3PreviewPatients with fatty liver disease may experience stigma from the disease or comorbidities. In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to understand stigma among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and healthcare providers. Full-Text PDF A multisociety Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclatureJournal of HepatologyVol. 79Issue 6PreviewThe principal limitations of the terms NAFLD and NASH are the reliance on exclusionary confounder terms and the use of potentially stigmatising language. This study set out to determine if content experts and patient advocates were in favour of a change in nomenclature and/or definition. A modified Delphi process was led by three large pan-national liver associations. The consensus was defined a priori as a supermajority (67%) vote. An independent committee of experts external to the nomenclature process made the final recommendation on the acronym and its diagnostic criteria. Full-Text PDF Open AccessDemocracy in ScienceJournal of HepatologyPreviewIt is not standard practice for the Editor-in-Chief to reply to a Letter to the Editor with a dedicated Editorial, but such a response is warranted in the case of the letter from Lonardo A. et al.,1 given its nature and the relevance of its content, which call into question the editorial strategy of the Journal of Hepatology regarding the new nomenclature of "metabolic fatty liver syndromes" endorsed by ALEH, AASLD and EASL after a long and difficult consensus process.2 Full-Text PDF Since many of us participated in the multi-society Delphi consensus statement on fatty liver disease nomenclature,[1]Rinella M.E. Lazarus J.V. Ratziu V. et al.A multi-society Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature.J Hepatol. 2023; (S0168-8278(23)00418-X)Google Scholar we were interested in a recent article by Younossi and colleagues investigating potential stigma among patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and among healthcare providers.[2]Younossi Z.M. AlQahtani S.A. Alswat K. et al.Global survey of stigma among physicians and patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.J Hepatol. 2023; (S0168-8278(23)05279-0)Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (3) Google Scholar The authors concluded that the perception of NAFLD stigma varied among patients, providers, geographic locations, and sub-specialties.[2]Younossi Z.M. AlQahtani S.A. Alswat K. et al.Global survey of stigma among physicians and patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.J Hepatol. 2023; (S0168-8278(23)05279-0)Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (3) Google Scholar Of particular interest, only 8% of patients and 38% of doctors perceived stigma with use of the term.[1]Rinella M.E. Lazarus J.V. Ratziu V. et al.A multi-society Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature.J Hepatol. 2023; (S0168-8278(23)00418-X)Google Scholar European patients more commonly (57%) reported being comfortable with either term, with many selecting "fatty liver disease". Of note, while the Asia-Pacific region is home to ∼60% of the world's population, only 5% of the study population was from this region.[2]Younossi Z.M. AlQahtani S.A. Alswat K. et al.Global survey of stigma among physicians and patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.J Hepatol. 2023; (S0168-8278(23)05279-0)Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (3) Google Scholar Furthermore, only 48% of patients ever disclosed their disease to family members, a proportion which is not different from other diseases.[3]Awareness of family health history as a risk factor for disease --- United States. 2004Google Scholar The 2023 multi-society Delphi consensus statement suggested renaming NAFLD to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), where "fatty" was replaced by its synonym "steatotic".[2]Younossi Z.M. AlQahtani S.A. Alswat K. et al.Global survey of stigma among physicians and patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.J Hepatol. 2023; (S0168-8278(23)05279-0)Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (3) Google Scholar While there was consensus among panelists to change the definition by focusing on metabolic dysfunction and omitting the term "nonalcoholic", only 44% of respondents felt that the term" fatty" was stigmatizing in the first round. These results, and knowledge of how patients and their healthcare providers perceive stigma when referring to NAFLD, raises the question as to whether patients truly feel stigmatized by the term "fatty", particularly when it refers to an organ (the liver), rather than a person. On the contrary, patients might prefer using the term "fatty" when describing their liver as it facilitates communication with their healthcare providers on an equal footing. The term "steatotic", largely unfamiliar to most patients, could impede a much-needed conversation with their health providers, hindering an understanding of primary causes in many cases, such as overnutrition and/or insufficient physical activity. The notion that "fatty" may not be stigmatizing is also supported by liver patients' spokespeople, highlighting that "in some cultures being fat is regarded as a sign of good health".[4]Shiha G. Korenjak M. Casanovas T. et al.MAFLD 2022: an ELPA/ALPA/EASO-ECPO joint statement on disease stigma.J Hepatol. 2022; 77: 1717-1719Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar Another study reported that this adjective is not invariably stigmatizing.[5]Méndez-Sánchez N. Pal S.C. Fassio E. et al.MAFLD: perceived stigma-a single-center Mexican patient survey.Hepatol Int. 2023; 17: 507-508Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar Another perspective is that patients are unlikely to know that "steatotic" is the adjective of steatosis. Importantly, "steatotic" cannot be found in any of the three online medical dictionaries nor in old books,[6]Lonardo A. MASLD co-aggregates with HCC in families-names change, fa(c)ts remain.Hepatoma Res. 2023; 9: 50https://doi.org/10.20517/2394-5079.2023.110Crossref Google Scholar implying that persons receiving a diagnosis of MASLD will probably find it difficult to intuitively grasp the essence of the condition and, therefore, largely depend on medical advice for explanations regarding their health status. Moreover, if these persons use 'Google' to search the meaning of "steatotic" or "steatosis", they will find that it indicates fat accumulation in the liver, a neutral fact that, however, does not fully encapsulate the core concept of the condition. Similarly, physicians frequently experience difficulties in explaining what "steatotic" means, other than using the adjective "fatty".[7]Clinicians Debate the Usefulness of NAFLD Name Change (medscape.com).Google Scholar Notably, the term "fatty" is perfectly acceptable and not considered offensive by many native English speakers. This likely explains why almost one-third of panelists in the Delphi consensus voted against this assertion. In addition, medical terms should communicate clearly to the patient and utilization of the adjective "steatotic" goes against efforts to promote better patient engagement and empowerment.[8]Hickmann E. Richter P. Schlieter H. All together now - patient engagement, patient empowerment, and associated terms in personal healthcare.BMC Health Serv Res. 2022; 22: 1116Crossref Scopus (24) Google Scholar Maintaining scientific integrity remains paramount in any ongoing debate surrounding this complex and heterogeneous condition. We assert that additional scientific data need to be accumulated to justify any specific context defined differently: NAFLD, metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD), and MASLD. The distinction among these nomenclatures, each defined differently, is crucial to further delineate the heterogeneous population and optimize classification for effective management strategies. A large cross-sectional study of individuals who had undergone liver ultrasound and vibration-controlled transient elastography as part of a routine check has shown that the MASLD definition captured more lean patients than the MAFLD definition.[9]Ramírez-Mejía M.M. Jiménez-Gutiérrez C. Eslam M. et al.Breaking new ground: MASLD vs. MAFLD-which holds the key for risk stratification?.Hepatol Int. 2023 Dec 21; (Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38127259)https://doi.org/10.1007/s12072-023-10620-yCrossref Scopus (1) Google Scholar Conversely, individuals with MAFLD exhibited a worse metabolic profile than those with MASLD alone. This study underscores that these nomenclatures and corresponding definitions capture different populations, with MAFLD identifying individuals with a worse metabolic profile while MASLD includes more lean individuals[9]Ramírez-Mejía M.M. Jiménez-Gutiérrez C. Eslam M. et al.Breaking new ground: MASLD vs. MAFLD-which holds the key for risk stratification?.Hepatol Int. 2023 Dec 21; (Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38127259)https://doi.org/10.1007/s12072-023-10620-yCrossref Scopus (1) Google Scholar Hence, the selection of the populations in future research should depend on specific research questions to be investigated. Enforcing the new MASLD nomenclature[10]Malhi H. Brown R.S. Jr. Lim J.K. et al.Precipitous changes in nomenclature and definitions-NAFLD becomes SLD: implications for and expectations of AASLD journals.Hepatology. 2023; 78: 1680-1681Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar without considering the context of studies could potentially generate confusion and hinder future research and new insights. Therefore, we propose that journals consider articles independently of the label used by researchers as long as the context is clearly defined. We would appreciate it if the Journal of Hepatology maintained a more flexible approach based on scientific rigor and knowledge-gain when judging future manuscripts. No financial support was received for preparing this manuscript. Stephen Caldwell - acknowledges the following Research Support: Gilead, GenFit, Ipsen, Zydus, Durect, Madrigal, Inventiva, Galectin, Cour, Exact, Ultragenyx, Target, Astra-Zeneca and Royalty Avanos. Robert G. Gish - has performed as Consultant and/or Advisor to (in the last two years): Abacus, Abbott, AbbVie, Albireo, Aligos, Altimunne, Antios, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Audentes Therapeutics, Corcept, Dynavax, Effectus, Eiger, Eisai, Enyo, Genentech, Genlantis, Gerson Lehrman Group, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Helios, HepaTX, HepQuant, Intercept, Janssen, JBS Science, Kinnate Bio, Merck, Precision BioSciences, Pfizer, Seres Therapeutics, Topography Health, Tune Therapeutics, Venatorx, Virion. Current Activity with Scientific or Clinical Advisory Boards: AbbVie, Dynavax, Enyo, Genentech, Genlantis, Gilead, Helios, HepaTX, HepQuant, Intercept, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Prodigy. Current Clinical Trials Alliance: Topography Health. Chair Clinical Advisory Board: Prodigy. Advisory Consultant: Diagnostic Companies: Fibronostics, Fujifilm/Wako, Perspectum, Quest, Sonic Incytes. Data Safety Monitoring Board:Arrowhead, CymaBay Therapeutics, Durect, Kezar Life Sciences, Sagimet, Takeda. Consulting Confidentiality Agreements as of 2023: Abacus: 2023-current, Abbvie: 2017-current, Abbott: 2016-current, Access Biologicals: 2016-current, Active Genome Expressed Diagnostics: 2022-current, ADMA Biologics: 2017-current, AEC Partners: 2017-current, Aligos Therapeutics: 2020-current, Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc: 2018-current, Ark Biopharmaceutical Co Ltd: 2022-current, Arrowhead: 2011-current, Arterys Inc: 2018 – current, Alexion: 2018-current, Altimmune: 2020-current, Antios Therapeutics: 2018-current, AprosTx: 2020-current, AstraZeneca: 2023-current, Audentes Therapeutics: 2022-current, Bayer: 2019-current, Bausch/Salix: 2022-current, Chimigen: 2022-current, Cirina: 2017-current, Consumer Health Products Assoc: 2019-current, Corcept: 2023-current, CymaBay Therapeutics Inc: 2020-current, DiaSorin Inc: 2020-current, Dova Pharmaceuticals: 2017-current, DRG Abacus: 2018-current, DURECT Corporation: 2020-current, Dynavax: 2018-current, Echosens: 2020-current, Effectus: 2023-current, Eiger: 2015-current, Eisai: 2018-current, Enyo: 2017-current, Espresso Diagnostics: 2023-current, Exelixis: 2018-current, Fibronostics Inc: 2020-current, Forty-Seven Inc: 2019-current, Fujifilm Wako Diagnostics: 2019-current, Gilead: 2018-current, GlaxoSmithKline: 2022-current, HepQuant: 2018-current, HepaTx: 2017-current, HomShear Therapeutics: 2022-current, IDLogiq: 2020-current, Intellia: 2015-current, Intercept 2010 to current: approved to discuss what is in the public domain, Inotek: 2017-current, Consulting Confidentiality Agreements as of 2022 (continued), Iqvia: 2018-current, Janssen/J&J: 2015-current, JBS: 2022-current, KannaLife: 2019-current, Kezar Life Sciences Inc: 2021-current, Kinnate Bio: 2023-current, LabCorp: 2022-current, Laboratory for Advanced Medicine: 2019-current, Labyrinth Holdings: 2017-current, Life Line Screening: 2020-current, Lilly: 2017-current, Mallinckrodt: 2022-current, MedImmune: 2015-current, Merck: 2017-current, New Enterprise Associates: 2020-current, Ogilvy CommonHealth: 2017-current, Organovo: 2017-current, Orphalan: 2022-current, Patient Connect: 2017-current, Perspectum: 2021-current, Pfizer: 2021-current, Pharmaceutical Research Associates: 2021-current, Precision BioScience: 2023-current, ProdigY Biotech: 2020-current, Prometheus Laboratories: 2017-current, Refuah Solutions: 2020-current, Regulus Therapeutics: 2019-current, Sagimet Inc: 2021-current, Salix: 2019-current, Saol Bermuda Ltd: 2021-current, Seres Therapeutics: 2022-current, Shenzhen HEC Industrial Development: 2021-current, Shionogi Inc: 2017-current, Spring Bank: 2018-current, Syneos: 2022-current, Takeda: 2022-current, Tonghua Anrate Biopharmaceutical: 2021-current, Topography Health: 2020-current, Trimaran: 2017-current, Tune Therapeutics: 2022-current, VBI Vaccine: 2022-current, Venatorx: 2021-current, Viravaxx AG: 2021-current, Virion: 2023-current. These speaker bureau activities focus on HBV, HCV, HDV and liver cancer; specifically, epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment. In addition, program presentations on vaccination for HBV and management of complications of cirrhosis. Dr. Gish has a speaker's contract to do promotional talks for: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Diasorin, Eisai, Genentech, Gilead Sciences Inc., Intercept, Mallinckrodt, VBI Vaccines. Minor stock shareholder (liver space noted only): RiboSciences, CoCrystal. Stock Options: Abacus, Eiger, Genlantis, HepQuant, AngioCrine, HepaTx, JBS Science, Virion. Henning Gronbaek – declares he has received research funding from Intercept, Abbvie, NOVO Nordisk Foundation, Arla, and ADS AIPHIA Development Services AG; advisory board at NOVO Nordisk, Astrazeneca and Ipsen. Norbert Stefan – declares that he has received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genkyotex, Intercept Pharma, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer and Sanofi, has received research funding from AstraZeneca, DSM Nutritional Products, F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Sanofi, and has acted as an advisor for AstraZeneca, Genkyotex, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Intercept Pharma, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer and Sanofi. Ming-Lung Yu – Research support (grant) from Abbvie, BMS, Gilead, Merck and Roche diagnostics. Consultant of Abbvie, BMS, Gilead, Roche and Roche diagnostics. Speaker of Abbvie, BMS, Eisai, Gilead, Roche and Roche diagnostics. All other authors report no conflicts of interest. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details. All authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing (original draft preparation, review, and editing) of the manuscript. The following are the supplementary data to this article: Download .pdf (1.04 MB) Help with pdf files Multimedia component 1

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: Evolution of the final terminology

From metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: Controversy and consensus

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: Navigating terminological evolution, diagnostic frontiers and therapeutic horizon-an editorial exploration

Deciphering the implications of MAFLD and MASLD definitions in the NAFLD population: results from a single-center biopsy study

NAFLD, MAFLD, and beyond: one or several acronyms for better comprehension and patient care

From Pathogenesis to Current Therapeutic Options

Editorial: International Consensus Recommendations to Replace the Terminology of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) with Metabolic-Associated Fatty Liver Disease (MAFLD)

From non-alcoholic fatty liver disease to metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease: Rationale and implications for the new terminology

[NAFLD renaming to MAFLD, MASLD: background, similarities, differences, and countermeasures]

From NAFLD to MAFLD: a “redefining” Moment for Fatty Liver Disease

From NAFLD to MASLD: implications of the new nomenclature for preclinical and clinical research

MASLD and MASH: how a change of nomenclature may impact our approach in treating liver disease

Critical appraisal of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: Implication of Janus-faced modernity

MAFLD: How is it different from NAFLD?

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: A pathophysiology and clinical framework to face the present and the future

NAFLD VS MAFLD. The evidence-based debate has come. Time to change?

Researchers Call for More Flexible Editorial Conduct Rather Than Abruptly Adopting Only the New MASLD Nomenclature.

New Nomenclature for Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Understanding Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease, Metabolic Dysfunction- and Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease, and Their Implications in Clinical Practice

Changes in the terminology and diagnostic criteria of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: Implications and opportunities

[Effect of the nomenclature of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease on diagnosis and treatment of fatty liver disease concomitant with other liver diseases]

Transition of an acronym from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease to metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease