Explor Dig Dis EDD Exploration of Digestive Diseases 2833-6321 Open Exploration Publishing 10.37349/edd.2025.100586 100586 Review MASLD vs. MAFLD. A narrative review https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9886-0698 Lonardo Amedeo Conceptualization Writing—original draft Writing—review & editing 1 † * https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4984-2631 Zheng Ming-Hua Conceptualization Writing—original draft Writing—review & editing 2 3 4 † Eslam Mohammed Conceptualization Writing—original draft Writing—review & editing 5 † Moshage Han Academic Editor University of Groningen, The Netherlands 1Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena (–2023), 41100 Modena, Italy 2MAFLD Research Center, Department of Hepatology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou 325000, Zhejiang, China 3Key Laboratory of Diagnosis and Treatment for the Development of Chronic Liver Disease in Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou 325000, Zhejiang, China 4Institute of Hepatology, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou 325000, Zhejiang, China 5Storr Liver Centre, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead Hospital and University of Sydney, Westmead, NSW 2145, Australia

These authors contributed equally to this work.

 *Correspondence: Amedeo Lonardo, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena (–2023), 41100 Modena, Italy. a.lonardo@libero.it 2025 14 08 2025 4 100586 21 05 2025 29 07 2025 © The Author(s) 2025. This is an Open Access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Here, the history of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis nomenclatures is summarized. Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) was coined in 2020, and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) was proposed in 2023. With this backset, the present article aims at reviewing the similarities and differences between MAFLD and MASLD through a systematic analysis of published comparative studies. MAFLD and MASLD have a complex disease spectrum comprising, further to all-cause mortality, hepatic (fibrosis, cirrhosis, and primary liver cancer) and extrahepatic outcomes (major adverse cardiovascular events, chronic kidney disease, extrahepatic cancers, type 2 diabetes, and vascular dementia). Comparative studies document that—due to its superior ability to identify liver fibrosis—MAFLD better captures mortality owing to all-causes, hepatic and extrahepatic outcomes, which are strongly associated with the severity of liver fibrosis. Moreover, MASLD is inappropriate in pediatric care, lacks specificity, tends to overdiagnosis, does not consider coexistent viral hepatitis or lean subjects, and amplifies disease heterogeneity. Collectively, the evidence presented in this narrative review supports an urgent need for the development of evidence-based guideline statements. This novel developmental process should involve not only a systematic review of the evidence, with equal contribution from all the world’s regions of stakeholders and clinical panelists, but also should use quantitative data to identify an objective-level consensus to guarantee wide adoption of the process outcomes.

 History of medicine metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) natural course nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) nomenclatures philosophy of science Introduction

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. —William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, 1594.

The liver exerts innumerable physiological functions that span the whole spectrum of metabolism and immunology, as well as the detoxification of endogenous and exogenous harmful substances [1]. However, the normal liver is not responsible for storing significant amounts of fatty substrates [2], and excess fat within the hepatocytes, defined as steatosis, has the potential for triggering progressive liver injury and is also associated with systemic adverse outcomes [3, 4].

Medical scientists have been struggling for centuries to understand fatty liver disease [5], and various definitions have been utilized over time. Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) describes hepatic steatosis (detected with either imaging techniques or histologically) which, in the absence of any other competing causes of steatotic liver disease (SLD), is associated with at least one among the cardiometabolic risk factors (CMRFs) that comprise the metabolic syndrome (MetS) among obesity, impaired glucose tolerance, arterial hypertension, and dyslipidemia [6]. However, what we now define as MASLD, or metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), has variably been called in the past, when other definitions, such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have rather been used [7]. MASLD is a global health concern, raising awareness of which is essential in every country, especially where its incidence and prevalence are increasing at a rapid pace [8].

Although all these various disease nomenclatures broadly allude to steatosis, their definitions and scope differ significantly, potentially identifying variable clinical outcomes and different risk trajectories. With this rapidly evolving scenario, the present review article aims to systematically analyze the spectrum of differences between MAFLD and MASLD, given that they represent the two most recent proposals and are still in competition among them to supplant the old NAFLD/NASH nomenclature. To this end, the relevant history of medicine is summarized first. Next, the natural course of SLD is analyzed. Moreover, the published comparative studies addressing MAFLD and NAFLD are discussed. Finally, the research agenda is examined.

 Method of bibliographic research History of SLD

Firstly, a comprehensive bibliographic research strategy was conducted to identify the relevant published articles addressing the history of SLD.

 MAFLD-MASLD comparative studies

Next, those original studies comparing MAFLD to MASLD published from inception till the 20th of May 2025 were retrieved in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, combining the keywords ‘MAFLD’ and ‘MASLD’. All original articles that combined the research keywords ‘MAFLD’ and ‘MASLD’ were included, and no published article matching this criterion was excluded.

 Historical perspective of the nomenclatures of SLD Nineteenth century—fatty liver

While clinical manifestations that can be conducive to the MetS and its complications were already identified by Hippocrates (460–370 BC) and Avicenna (981 AD), the first description of histopathological features of “fatty liver” is attributed to Addison in 1863 [9].

In 1838, Rokitansky was the first to report that the accumulation of intrahepatic fat might cause cirrhosis, while Pepper in 1884, and Bartholow in 1885 observed the associations of “fatty infiltration of the liver” with diabetes and obesity, respectively [9].

 Twentieth century—NASH & NAFLD

In 1938, Connor reported the clinical-pathological correlations of cirrhosis with severe portal hypertension developing in patients with diabetes and fibrosing SLD [9].

In 1958, Westwater and Feiner published on fatty infiltration of the liver in obese patients, and, in 1962, Thaler added a more accurate clinical-pathological description of the disease, which was further documented by several reports from the 1950s to the 1970s of fatty liver disease occurring among individuals with obesity and diabetes [9].

In 1980, Ludwig et al. [10] described liver histology of 20 patients with “nonalcoholic steatohepatitis of unknown cause”, which he defined as a “previously unnamed disease”. Liver changes comprised “striking fatty changes with evidence of lobular hepatitis, focal necroses with mixed inflammatory infiltrates, and, in most instances, Mallory bodies; evidence of fibrosis was found in most specimens, and cirrhosis was diagnosed in biopsy tissue from three patients”. Clinically, the disease was more common in women with moderate obesity, diabetes, and gallstones exhibiting enlarged livers and mildly abnormal liver tests.

In 1986, Schaffner and Thaler [11] expanded the disease spectrum of NASH to NAFLD, which also includes uncomplicated fatty liver, i.e., simple steatosis.

 Twenty-first century—MAFLD & MASLD

The adjective “nonalcoholic” may be defined as a “non-association” [12]. Therefore, in 2020, to turn a “negative” definition into a condition with a positive diagnostic criterion, notably pinpointing the pathogenic dysmetabolic origin, international experts led by Eslam and George [13] proposed renaming NAFLD to MAFLD.

MAFLD definition met universal stakeholder endorsement [14] and, although not totally devoid of ambiguity and even though it intensifies NAFLD’s heterogeneity, it has major significance for hepatological research and practice [15–17].

In 2023, to address various challenges inherent in the existing disease nomenclatures, a modified Delphi process led by Hepatological Scientific Societies culminated in the proposal to remove the adjective ‘nonalcoholic’ and replace ‘fatty’ with ‘steatotic’ [6]. This Delphi consensus coined the nomenclature of MASLD that defines those individuals with steatosis (assessed either histologically or based on imaging techniques) and at ≥ 1 out of 5 CMRFs (Figure 1). According to this novel nomenclature, NASH was supplanted by MASH. Additionally, to identify those individuals with MASLD with a daily alcohol intake of 20–50/30–60 g for females/males, respectively, the term MASLD and increased alcohol intake (MetALD) was introduced.

Differences in the criteria to define NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD. NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD have in common steatosis. This is typically defined histologically in NAFLD, while in MAFLD and MASLD, liver steatosis may also be identified with imaging techniques or serum-based biomarkers, not only with liver biopsy. Moreover, the exclusion of excessive alcohol consumption and other competing causes of steatosis is requested for NAFLD and MASLD, not for MAFLD [18]. CLD: chronic liver disease; MAFLD: metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease; MASLD: metabolic dysfunction-associated; MRFs: metabolic risk factors; NAFLD: nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Original image drawn with Servier Medical Art, licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

To sum up, Figure 2 graphically depicts some key steps in the evolution of NAFLD/MAFLD/MASLD nomenclatures over time.

Graphical summary of some of the most relevant advances in the field of SLD nomenclatures [6, 10, 11, 13, 19–21]. Arbitrary time scale illustrating the steps leading from the early description of fatty liver in 1845 [19] through MASLD in 2023 [6]. Intermediate nomenclatures comprise NASH [10], NAFLD [11], insulin-resistant (or metabolic) fatty liver disease [20], MAFL [21], and MAFLD [13]. MAFL: metabolic-associated fatty liver; MAFLD: metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease; MASLD: metabolic dysfunction-associated; NAFLD: nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; NASH: nonalcoholic steatohepatitis

 The natural course of NAFLD

NAFLD is the prototypic disease entity in the SLD spectrum, and most of what is presently known regarding the natural history of SLD is based on analysis of NAFLD patient populations. The spectrum of hepatic and extrahepatic NAFLD outcomes serves as a reminder of the outcomes that also MAFLD and MASLD should be able to capture.

As a systemic disorder, NAFLD affects not only the liver, but also various extra-hepatic organ systems, and the spectrum of extra-hepatic associations is ever-expanding. Indeed, NAFLD carries an increased risk of MetS and its individual components, adverse cardiovascular events, chronic kidney disease (CKD), extra-hepatic cancers, and possibly, certain types of dementia [22–27].

It is widely acknowledged that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common cause of mortality in NAFLD patients, followed by malignancies, while liver-related complications are a distant third [28]. Indeed, NAFLD (compared to individuals without NAFLD) is associated with higher odds of fatal and non-fatal CVD events [hazard ratio (HR): 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.31 to 1.61] [29]. Additionally, compared to NAFLD-free controls, individuals with NAFLD exhibit a higher risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.54) and cardiovascular mortality (HR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.08 to 1.56) [29].

According to Fu et al. [30], who conducted a systematic review of 15 published studies totaling 10,286,490 individuals, NAFLD was associated with higher odds of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.59), CVD-related mortality (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.41), and cancer-related mortality (HR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.15 to 2.41). However, no significant association was found between liver-related mortality and NAFLD, probably because fibrosis has a low prevalence in the community.

A study of 957 subjects with NAFLD found age (HR: 1.070), hypertension (HR: 4.361), and decompensated cirrhosis (HR: 15.036) to independently predict poor outcomes at multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis. Additionally, liver stiffness measurement, bilirubin, compensated and decompensated cirrhosis independently predicted liver-related events [28].

Xiao et al. [29] have confirmed that NAFLD increased the risks of CVD, systemic malignancies, diabetes, and CKD. As regards liver-related outcomes, the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in NAFLD is 2.39 per 100 person years (95% CI: 1.40 to 4.08) and NAFLD—compared to individuals without NAFLD—is also associated with higher odds of cholangiocarcinoma, the second most common type of primary liver cancer after HCC [odds ratio (OR): 1.88, 95% CI: 1.25 to 2.83] [29, 31].

Liver fibrosis is a major determinant of liver-related outcomes among NAFLD individuals. For example, subjects with NAFLD living with fibrosis stage 3 exhibit a five-fold increased risk of liver-related events (i.e., end-stage cirrhosis and HCC) compared to those patients with NAFLD with no or little fibrosis [32]. Consistently, a cohort study of 1,260 Swedish with non-cirrhotic NAFLD submitted to long-term follow-up has shown that the 20-year cumulative incidence of major adverse liver outcomes were in the same magnitude for the reference population as among subjects with F0 fibrosis (2% vs. 3%, respectively) while it was 35% for those with F3 liver fibrosis [33]. Fibrosis progression may also occur among those with uncomplicated steatosis [34]. However, the speed of progression of fibrosis is two-fold higher in NASH than in simple steatosis (14.3 years vs. 7.1 years, respectively) [35].

Additionally, the severity of fibrosis modulates the risks of cause-specific mortality in NAFLD. A seminal study by Vilar-Gomez et al. [36] found that individuals with NAFLD-cirrhosis experience predominantly liver-related events, whereas those with bridging fibrosis predominantly have extra-hepatic cancers and adverse cardiovascular events.

At variance with the prominent role of fibrosis, the inflammatory component of NAFLD (NASH) has no proven association with adverse clinical outcomes [37]. In NAFLD, the putative factors that are associated with poor liver events comprise genetic variants, intestinal dysbiosis, body weight gain, increased insulin resistance, and exacerbation of liver steatosis [37].

Among these aggravating factors, type 2 diabetes (T2D) undoubtedly plays a major role. A systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based cohort studies reported that T2D was associated with an increased risk of incident severe liver disease events (adjusted HR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.83 to 2.76) [38]. This is relevant given that NAFLD subjects (and particularly those with more severe fibrosis) are at risk of developing incident T2D [39]. This mutual and bi-directional relationship generates a cause-and-effect vicious circle [40].

CKD participates in a similar vicious circle. On the one hand, NAFLD is a risk factor for incident CKD [25]; on the other hand, the coexistence of NAFLD with CKD negatively affects the outcomes of either condition separately and amplifies the risk of cardiovascular events and mortality [41–43].

Finally, the role of sex and liver fibrosis as modifiers of the risks of HCC and extra-hepatic outcomes in MASLD has been reviewed elsewhere [44].

Mendelian randomization analysis suggests causal associations between biopsy-proven MASLD with vascular dementia, whereas no evidence was found of a causal nexus between MASLD and any dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, or frontotemporal dementia [27].

To sum up, Figure 3 illustrates the spectrum of the main hepatic and extra-hepatic MASLD outcomes such as described in this paragraph. In conclusion, owing to the more abundant literature and long-lasting observational studies available, we have used the NAFLD paradigm to recapitulate the natural course of SLD. There is no reason to believe that MAFLD and MASLD have different disease outcomes compared to NAFLD, and rather these two nomenclatures might differ regarding their variable ability to capture these hepatic and extra-hepatic disease manifestations and complications.

Spectrum of the MASLD outcomes. Figure 3 graphically depicts the notions illustrated in The natural course of NAFLD. The left-hand part of the illustration depicts hepatic outcomes, whereas the extra-hepatic outcomes are shown in the right-hand part of the figure. CC: cholangiocarcinoma; CKD: chronic kidney disease; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; MACE: major adverse cardiovascular events; MASLD: metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease; T2D: type 2 diabetes. Original image drawn with Servier Medical Art, licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

 MASLD/MAFLD comparative studies

Multiple published original articles have compared the scope of the novel MASLD nomenclature to the previous MAFLD definition in a few months [45–63], indicating strong interest in this topic. These original published studies are summarized in Table 1.

Synopsis of published comparative studies, ordered chronologically

Author, year [Ref] Method Results Conclusion
Zhao and Deng, 2024 [45] 13,856 adults were identified using the NHANES III database and followed for 23.7 ± 7.62 years. Of these, 10,940 had non-MASLD/MAFLD, 855 MAFLD-only, 93 MASLD-only, and 1,968 had overlapping MASLD/MAFLD. Subjects with MAFLD-only (aHR: 1.151, 95% CI: 1.030–1.285) and overlapping MASLD/MAFLD (aHR: 1.109, 95% CI: 1.033–1.292) had a higher risk of all-cause mortality than individuals with non-MASLD/MAFLD. However, MASLD-only individuals were not at increased risk of all-cause mortality. It is MAFLD (not MASLD) that determines the natural course of liver disease.
Ramírez-Mejía et al., 2024 [46] Cross-sectional analysis of 500 participants. 59.4% of participants were diagnosed as MAFLD+MASLD+, 10.2% as MASLD+ and 30.4% as MAFLD-MASLD-. These variable prevalence rates depended on the detection of individuals with a BMI < 25 kg/m2, where MASLD identified the highest number (p < 0.001). MASLD captures lean individuals better than MAFLD, whereas MAFLD better identifies subjects at a higher risk of liver fibrosis and disease progression.
Zhou et al., 2024 [47] Retrospective analysis of 92,177 participants with SLD ascertained with USG. MAFLD-MASLD+ subjects did not exhibit a greater MACE risk than MAFLD-MASLD- individuals, and their risk was significantly lower than that of MAFLD+MASLD+ people (16.2% vs. 5.3%, p < 0.001). Among lean SLD subjects, approximately 10% of cases have MASLD and are not at as high a risk of MACE as those who are MAFLD+MASLD+ (17.7% vs. 5.8%, p < 0.001). The MASLD definition captures a greater number of individuals. Conversely, the MAFLD nomenclature is more selective in identifying those individuals who are at increased risk of adverse outcomes.
Park et al., 2024 [48] Among 844 participants, SLD was defined as MRI-PDFF ≥ 5%. The prevalence rates were as follows: NAFLD 25.9%, MAFLD 29.5%, and MASLD 25.2%. The prevalences of NAFLD and MASLD assessed using MRI-PDFF were similar, with MASLD accounting for 97.3% of the patients with NAFLD.
Mori et al., 2024 [49] Among 15,788 recruited Japanese, clustering analyses were used to investigate the NAFLD and MAFLD nomenclatures. MASLD and NAFLD shared three clusters: (i) low alcohol consumption with low-grade obesity; (ii) obesity with dyslipidemia; and (iii) dysfunctional glucose metabolism. Both MetALD and ALD displayed one distinct cluster intertwined with alcohol consumption. MAFLD was widely shared across all five clusters. The various SLD nomenclatures provide variable insights into predictive factors and the dynamic disease interplay.
Pan et al., 2024 [50] 6,096 individuals from the 2017 to 2020 NHANES cohort. Compared to the absence of each condition, MAFLD (OR: 2.14, 95% CI: 1.78–2.57, p < 0.001) was more strongly associated with high ASCVD risk than MASLD (OR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.52–2.18, p < 0.001). At MLR, MAFLD alone was significantly more strongly associated with a high risk of ASCVD (OR: 2.82, 95% CI: 1.13–7.01, p < 0.03) than MASLD alone. MAFLD and MASLD are both associated with ASCVD risks. However, MAFLD predicts ASCVD risk better than MASLD.
Kim et al., 2024 [51] Analysis of 7,811 participants of the 3rd NHANES database and linked mortality through 2019. SLD was identified with USG. During a median 27.1-year follow-up, the risk of all-cause mortality was HR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.09–1.38 for MAFLD; HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.01–1.27 for MASLD. MAFLD nomenclature identifies a patient population at higher risk of all-cause mortality than MASLD.
Wu et al., 2024 [52] Population-based cross-sectional survey of 7,388 Chinese participants. Cryptogenic SLD and MASLD+MAFLD- patients exhibited milder SLD and a lower frequency of liver injury than NAFLD, MAFLD, or MASLD patients (all p < 0.05). MAFLD identifies subjects with more severe SLD and a higher frequency of liver injury.
Pan et al., 2024 [53] 5,492 participants from the 2017–2020 NHANES database were enrolled. Albuminuria was defined as a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥ 3 mg/mmol. MAFLD+MASLD- individuals exhibited a greater prevalence of CKD (24.7% vs. 8.3%, p < 0.006) and albuminuria (18.6% vs. 5%, p < 0.01) than did those with MAFLD-MASLD+. After adjustment for confounders, MAFLD+MASLD- subjects had a 4.73-fold higher risk of having prevalent CKD than those in the MASLD+MAFLD- group (p < 0.03). MAFLD nomenclature captures CKD patients better than MASLD.
Pan et al., 2024 [54] 8,317 subjects from the 2017–2020 NHANES database were included. Liver fibrosis ≥ F2 (i.e., “significant fibrosis”) was determined by a median LSM ≥ 8.0 kPa. Compared to MASLD (OR: 2.63, 95% CI: 2.22–3.11, p < 0.0001), MAFLD (OR: 3.44, 95% CI: 2.88–4.12, p < 0.0001) tended to be more strongly associated with significant fibrosis. Compared to MAFLD-MASLD+ individuals, those with MASLD-MAFLD+ had a 14.28-fold higher risk of significant fibrosis. The MAFLD nomenclature identifies significant fibrosis more precisely among individuals with SLD.
Bao et al., 2024 [55] Prospective study enrolling 403,506 participants from the UK Biobank. MAFLD was associated with a higher risk of vascular dementia (HR: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.18–1.48) but a reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease. MASLD was associated with an increased risk of vascular dementia (HR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.1–1.39) but not Alzheimer’s disease. While the effect of MAFLD on vascular dementia was consistent regardless of MASLD presence, Alzheimer’s disease risk was only present in those without MASLD (HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.67–0.91). MAFLD is associated with vascular dementia irrespective of the presence of MASLD, whereas the risks of Alzheimer’s disease were only evident in MASLD- individuals.
Mayén et al., 2024 [56] Data from 15,784 EPIC (a prospective cohort study of more than 521,324 European participants) were used. SLD was assessed with FLI. Compared to those without the condition, MAFLD was positively associated with all-cause mortality (HR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.25–1.55) and so was MASLD (HR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.26−1.56). Both MAFLD and MASLD are associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality compared to non-MAFLD and non-MASLD, respectively. However, this study fails to compare MAFLD vs. MASLD directly.
Pennisi et al., 2024 [57] Meta-analysis of 21 eligible cohort studies. Compared to those with NAFLD, MAFLD individuals had significantly higher rates of overall mortality (random-effect OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.04–1.21, p = 0.004) and CV mortality (random-effect OR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.04–1.26, p = 0.004), and a marginal trend towards higher rates of developing CKD (random-effect OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.00–1.12, p = 0.058) and EHCs (random-effect OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.00–1.23, p = 0.052). In meta-regression analyses, male sex and metabolic comorbidities were the strongest risk factors associated with adverse outcomes in MAFLD vs. NAFLD. Individuals with MAFLD have higher rates of overall and CV mortality and higher risks of developing CKD and EHC events than those with NAFLD.
Jiang et al., 2024 [58] Data from 7,791 adults participating in the NHANES III study were analyzed. Compared to those without any SLD and to MASLD-MAFLD+ individuals, MASLD+MAFLD- subjects were younger and had better metabolic profiles and lower fibrosis stages. Consistently, MASLD+MAFLD- people tended to have lower cumulative incidence of all-cause and CV. Clustering analysis showed that MAFLD-MASLD+ clustered differently from individuals with MASLD-MAFLD+. MAFLD-MASLD+ individuals exhibit a distinct, clinically heterogeneous phenotype compared to those identified by the MAFLD definition.
Kang et al., 2024 [59] Cross-sectional, multicenter, retrospective study of 2,906 Koreans who underwent abdominal USG and cardiac CT (2017–2021). In an ASCVD risk score-adjusted model, both MASLD (aOR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.02–1.44, p = 0.033) and MAFLD (aOR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.01–1.42, p = 0.034) were associated with CAC. However, only MASLD was associated with severe CAC (aOR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.01–1.89, p = 0.041). MASLD may predict higher ASCVD risk better than MAFLD.
Pan et al., 2024 [60] 1,359 participants aged 12 to 17 years from the 2017–2020 NHANES. 25% of patients who were missed based on the MASLD nomenclature and who met the MAFLD criteria had significant liver fibrosis. MAFLD participants tended to have significantly elevated LSMs compared to those without MAFLD (5.66 ± 2.28 vs. 4.94 ± 1.86, p = 0.06). However, this was not the case for MASLD individuals compared to those without MASLD (5.27 ± 3.10 vs. 5.62 ± 2.12, p = 0.3). The MASLD criteria overlook several adolescents with severe SLD.
Vaz et al., 2025 [61] Longitudinal study of a cohort of 1,454 randomly selected community-dwelling adult Australians between 2001 and 2003 and followed for a median of 19.7 years (IQR: 19.1–20.1). MAFLD remained as a risk factor for all-cause mortality on multivariable models adjusted for lifestyle and socioeconomic variables, but not when adjusted for metabolic risk factors. MALOs were increased in MAFLD (IRR: 3.03, 95% CI: 1.22–8.18) and MASLD (IRR: 2.80, 95% CI: 1.05–7.90). Metabolic risk factors were associated with an increased risk of overall mortality and MALO, and cancer (34.3–34.6%) and CVD (30.1–33.7%) were the most common causes of death in SLD. MAFLD, but not MASLD, is associated with an increased risk of overall mortality, with the components of the MetS playing a major role in increasing the mortality risk.
Peng et al., 2025 [62] 1,862 eligible individuals from the NHANES 2017–2018 cycle. The risk of HTN was positively associated with MASLD (OR: 2.892, 95% CI: 2.226–3.756), MetALD (OR: 1.802, 95% CI: 1.355–2.398), MAFLD (OR: 3.455, 95% CI: 2.741–4.354) and NAFLD (OR: 1.983, 95% CI: 1.584–2.484) and the risk of T2DM was positively associated with MASLD (OR: 6.360, 95% CI: 4.440–9.109), MAFLD (OR: 7.026, 95% CI: 4.893–10.090) and NAFLD (OR: 3.372, 95% CI: 2.511–4.528). Similar findings were identified for hyperlipidemia. MAFLD more effectively identifies subjects who are at increased risk of components of the MetS, such as HTN and hyperlipidemia.
Jin et al., 2025 [63] 340,998 participants of the UK Biobank study were followed over a median of 13.5 years. MAFLD diabetes subtype (HR: 2.26, 95% CI: 2.17–2.35), regardless of the presence of MASLD and ALD (HR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.55–1.76), showed the highest risk of CVDs. Irrespective of the presence of MASLD, MAFLD is associated with CVD outcomes.

aHR: adjusted hazard ratio; ALD: alcohol-related liver disease; aOR: adjusted odds ratio; ASCVD: atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; CAC: coronary artery calcification; CKD: chronic kidney disease; CI: confidence interval; CT: computerized tomography; CVD: cardiovascular disease; EHCs: extra-hepatic cancers; EPIC: European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition; FLI: fatty liver index; HR: hazard ratio; HTN: arterial hypertension; IQR: interquartile range; IRR: incidence rate ratio; LSM: liver stiffness measurement; MACE: major adverse cardiovascular events; MAFLD: metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease; MALOs: major adverse liver outcomes; MASLD: metabolic dysfunction-associated; MetALD: MASLD and increased alcohol intake; MetS: metabolic syndrome; MLR: Multiple logistic regression; MRI-PDFF: magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction; NAFLD: nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; NHANES: national health and nutrition examination survey; OR: odds ratio; SLD: steatotic liver disease; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus; USG: ultrasonography

 Overall mortality and mortality owing to cardiovascular causes

As far as mortality is concerned, studies agree in demonstrating that MAFLD predicts all-cause and mortality owing to CVD in SLD better than MASLD [45, 51, 57, 61]. Other studies explain the mechanisms underlying this finding. For example, the papers by Ramírez-Mejía et al. [46] and Pan et al. [54] both concur in indicating that MAFLD is better than MASLD at identifying those subjects who are at a higher risk of liver fibrosis, the main driver of the natural course of liver disease. Indeed, in early NAFLD, metabolic low-grade inflammation (“metaflammation”) typically serves as the primary driver of disease, promoting the fibrotic progression [64]. However, once established in more advanced stages of disease, liver fibrosis emerges as the dominant driver shaping liver-related outcomes (e.g., cirrhosis, HCC) and extra-hepatic events (such as metabolic dysfunction, extrahepatic cancers, and cardio-nephro-vascular disease) [24–26, 36, 65].

 Extra-hepatic outcomes

It is noteworthy in this regard that liver fibrosis is also associated with extra-hepatic outcomes and, in agreement, studies have shown that, compared to MASLD, the MAFLD nomenclature more selectively identifies those subjects who have higher odds of the MetS components [62], CVD events [47, 51, 59, 63]; more severe SLD and higher rates of liver injury in the general population [52]; increased prevalence of CKD [53].

Finally, a single study has found that independent of MASLD, MAFLD is associated with vascular dementia; however, the associations with Alzheimer’s disease were found only among MASLD- individuals [55].

 Practical usefulness of the MAFLD definition

Robust evidence supports the practicality and usefulness of the MAFLD definition, which, compared to MASLD, achieves an optimal balance between sensitivity and specificity. In agreement, over 80 professional societies representing multiple stakeholders across the global liver health community have recently reaffirmed their endorsement of the MAFLD nomenclature as an appropriate definition, which predictably has major implications transcending the change of nomenclature to include fields such as cost-effectiveness and health policy [66]. Additionally, the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver has issued clinical practice guidelines focused on MAFLD [67], suggesting that a large hepatological community is going to continue using the MAFLD nomenclature.

 Advantages and disadvantages of MAFLD and MASLD

Analysis of studies summarized in Table 1. Supports the conclusion that MAFLD and MASLD are both associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality compared to non-MAFLD and non-MASLD controls, respectively [50].

MAFLD has the following advantages over MASLD: a) the MAFLD nomenclature more selectively identifies those individuals who are at increased risk of adverse outcomes; b) MAFLD (not MASLD) determines the natural course of liver disease [46] and, specifically, identifies a patient population at higher risk of all-cause mortality than MASLD [51, 61], identifies individuals with more severe SLD and higher frequency of liver injury [52], and significant liver fibrosis [46, 54]. Additionally, c) MAFLD nomenclature captures cardiovascular outcomes [50, 63] and CKD better than MASLD [53, 57]. However, MAFLD’s “dual etiology” model for viral hepatitis lacks solid clinical data or relevance.

Conversely, MASLD has the following advantages over MAFLD: a) The MASLD definition is more inclusive and captures a greater number of individuals [47]; b) MASLD identifies lean individuals better than MAFLD [46]. However, MASLD is considered less suitable for pediatrics [68], and there is minimal evidence regarding its overlap with viral hepatitis, supporting a growing body of research exploring the interplay between MASLD and viral hepatitis, particularly in the context of dual etiologies [69, 70].

Collectively, the MASLD vs. MAFLD comparison has triggered a scientific debate that transcends the strict arena of clinical practice and research and enters the wider scope of philosophy of science.

Implications of the differences between MAFLD and MASLD

Based on comparative analysis of the yields of the MASLD and MAFLD nomenclatures, several limitations have been identified. Collectively, these explain why, rather than providing any conceptual improvement compared to the MAFLD nomenclature, MASLD criteria tend to perform worse than MAFLD [71].

Limitations of MASLD nomenclature compared to the MAFLD nosography include the following: it is deemed to be inappropriate in pediatric care; it lacks specificity, has a lower performance, and tends to overdiagnosis. Additionally, it fails to consider a global perspective; does not consider coexistent viral hepatitis; lacks consideration of lean subjects; and amplifies disease heterogeneity.

For example, Cusi et al. [72] have pinpointed that the middle-aged general population has a very high prevalence of at least one CMRF irrespective of the presence or absence of steatosis and that the majority of overweight MASLD are indeed insulin resistant, suggesting a significant discordance and relatively low specificity for these clinical comorbidities as surrogates for insulin resistance.

Henry et al. [73] impute the finding that MAFLD captures patients at high risk for adverse outcomes better than MASLD, owing to the MAFLD definition including more liberal use of alcohol, which often negatively impacts clinical endpoints. In this context, these authors pinpoint the more granular sub-classification of SLD categories, such as MetALD and alcohol-related liver disease (ALD). Bringing these observations further, Ciardullo [74] has pinpointed the important notion that the higher the number of CMRFs that concur in the same individual, the higher the overall cardiovascular risk, and that MASLD and MetALD, as a whole, probably encompass the whole MAFLD spectrum. Scrutiny has shown that the MetALD entity contains some elements of strong heterogeneity, if not clear ambiguity, since MetALD patients share some characteristics with MASLD while resembling ALD subjects more, especially after adjusting for BMI [75]. Moreover, the current classification of patients may be made challenging by the finding that alcohol consumption dissociates insulin resistance from certain CMFRs, such as blood pressure and HDL-cholesterol [75].

MAFLD has been adopted by scientific societies due to its concise diagnostic criterion, removal of the requirement to exclude concomitant liver diseases, and reduction in the stigma associated with this condition [76]. Furthermore, it has been endorsed by a collaborative panel of 890 international experts in various fields from 61 countries who agreed that MAFLD should be coded in the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11 [77].

 Philosophy of science

The advent of the novel MASLD nomenclature has generated a debate about the essential requirements that disease names should have in medicine. Sanal et al. [78] have clearly identified such requirements, which include the following: accuracy, uniqueness, consistency, objectivity, granularity, comprehensiveness, adaptability, accessibility, and global applicability.

The MAFLD nomenclature has abundantly met its promise which was inspired by four robust foundational principles comprising: a) applicability to all age groups; b) focus on removing alcohol from the diagnostic criteria; c) emphasis on evaluating (rather than excluding) concurrent etiologies of chronic liver disease (CLD); d) universal applicability of clinically relevant diagnostic criteria [79].

Whether or not it is appropriate to change “fatty” with “steatotic” represents a topic of major significance for the philosophy of science. In this regard, Alboraie et al. [80] have pinpointed that the adjective “fatty” is commonly used across various medical specialties, indicating that it is largely accepted. Moreover, systematic analysis of 17 non-latin languages, collectively spoken by more than 5 billion people globally, has indicated that these languages either had a translation for the word fatty” while lacking a specific translation for the word “steatotic,” or had translations for both “steatotic” and “fatty” with similar meanings, or had similar meanings and writing patterns for both adjectives [81]. Additionally, in Chinese, the adjective “fatty” ha a neutral qualification, encompassing a variety of situations from daily use (e.g., fatty meal) to academic expressions (e.g., fatty liver) [82]. This implies that the old NAFLD definition has negligible stigma impact when translated into Chinese [82]. These considerations are particularly important when considering the substantial disproportion between the abundant fraction of patients from China confronted with the small minority of Asian participants in the Delphi consensus [82].

Regarding the relationship between democracy and science, it has been nicely pinpointed that the scientific method has nothing to do with democracy [83]. We cannot decide by consensus whether the world is flat and whether the evolutionary theories are correct [78]. However, it is true that the rules of democracy must be applied whenever a consensus is sought in the scientific community in front of insufficient evidence to support shared conclusions [83]. Although debates cannot be avoided in medical research, the only method to resolve them is by relying on scientific evidence, not using an eminence-based approach [84, 85].

 Conclusions

The development of a novel medical terminology to receive global acceptance involves a complicated workflow, and the consensus panel that began to promote the MASLD concept of MAFLD deserves great credit [86]. However, the ultimate drivers of this initiative remain controversial according to some investigators [87, 88]. Although it met with wide acceptance, the MAFLD definition has also been criticized based on several points of weakness [5]. According to Anand, albeit pathogenically linked with the MetS, MAFLD was unresponsive to those classes of drugs used to treat the individual components of the MetS [5]. Secondly, the excess focus on metabolic components eventually led to neglecting major players in MAFLD pathophysiology (e.g., genetics, gut dysbiosis, and sarcopenia) [5]. Thirdly, MAFLD failed to completely account for the additive/synergistic effects on the risks of onset and worsening of fatty liver disease owing to concurrent viral hepatitis and alcohol abuse [5]. Finally, among individuals with “lean NAFLD”, MetS may not be prominent [5].

On these grounds, the rationale for developing the MASLD nomenclature was based on three major points [5]: a) the adjective “fatty” was deemed to be stigmatizing; b) scholars wanted to recognize he concurrence of multiple contributing factors that in most individuals with SLD; c) the potentially negative impact that changes in diagnostic criteria could have on the development of biomarkers and therapeutics. However, only a weak majority of 53% of the panelists (vs. 47% supporting no change) sustained the decision to change the definition of MASLD and this vote underscores the intricate nature of this matter, while simultaneously highlighting the existence of contentions which would have benefited from a more in-depth debate of controversial issues before adopting the new MASLD definition [72, 89].

MAFLD and MASLD definitions mainly differ in the number of metabolic derangements needed to define “metabolic dysfunction” in normal-weight individuals and in alcohol consumption [18]. A key difference between MAFLD and MASLD is how they consider SLD as related to other coexistent liver disorders. While MAFLD embraces the notion of “dual etiology”, which generates a unified classification system that is consistent with the needs of epidemiological and therapeutic research, MASLD, by introducing the newly coined MetALD definition, describes individuals exhibiting both metabolic dysfunction and excessive alcohol consumption [90]. Additionally, the MAFLD nomenclature may contribute to decreasing the heterogeneity of other disease definitions [91].

Based on the evidence shown in Table 1 and discussed in-depth in this narrative review, there is an urgent need for more studies that should include participants from different regions, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds to better understand the global impact of MASLD and MAFLD. Future research should focus on elucidating the pathophysiological pathways linking metabolic dysfunction to liver disease and other comorbidities to develop targeted therapies. With the rapid advancements in omics technologies, there is a growing interest in identifying novel biomarkers that can improve the accuracy of disease detection and prognosis. Moreover, a true consensus process that allows for the development of evidence-based guideline statement should involve a systematic review of the evidence, with equal contribution from all regions of the world, patients, research, and clinical panelists, and using quantifiable data to identify an objective-level consensus to ensure that the outcomes will be adopted globally [71].

 Abbreviations ALD

alcohol-related liver disease

 CI

confidence interval

 CKD

chronic kidney disease

 CMRFs

cardiometabolic risk factors

 CVD

cardiovascular disease

 HCC

hepatocellular carcinoma

 HR

hazard ratio

 MAFLD

metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease

 MASH

metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis

 MASLD

metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease

 MetALD

metabolic dysfunction-associated and increased alcohol intake

 MetS

metabolic syndrome

 NAFLD

nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

 NASH

nonalcoholic steatohepatitis

 OR

odds ratio

 SLD

steatotic liver disease

 T2D

type 2 diabetes

 Declarations Author contributions

AL, MHZ, and ME: Conceptualization, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

 Conflicts of interest

Amedeo Lonardo who is an Editorial Board Member of Exploration of Digestive Diseases had no involvement in the decision-making or the review process of this manuscript. Other authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

 Ethical approval

Not applicable.

 Consent to participate

Not applicable.

 Consent to publication

Not applicable.

 Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

 Funding

Not applicable.

 Copyright

© The Author(s) 2025.

 Publisher’s note

Open Exploration maintains a neutral stance on jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliations and maps. All opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the author(s) and do not represent the stance of the editorial team or the publisher.

 Chiang J Liver Physiology: Metabolism and Detoxification Linda MM Richard NM Pathobiology of Human Disease San Diego Elsevier 2014 pp. 1770–82. Alves-Bezerra M Cohen DE Triglyceride Metabolism in the Liver Compr Physiol 2017 8 1 8 10.1002/cphy.c170012 29357123 PMC6376873 Nassir F Rector RS Hammoud GM Ibdah JA Pathogenesis and Prevention of Hepatic Steatosis Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 2015 11 167 75 27099587 PMC4836586 Overi D Carpino G Franchitto A Onori P Gaudio E Hepatocyte Injury and Hepatic Stem Cell Niche in the Progression of Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis Cells 2020 9 590 10.3390/cells9030590 32131439 PMC7140508 Anand AC Praharaj D MASLD or MAFLD: fatty liver by any name will pose the same challenge Metab Target Organ Damage 2025 5 20 10.20517/mtod.2025.18 Rinella ME Lazarus JV Ratziu V Francque SM Sanyal AJ Kanwal F et al. A multisociety Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature J Hepatol 2023 79 1542 56 10.1016/j.jhep.2023.06.003 37364790 Fouad Y Waked I Bollipo S Gomaa A Ajlouni Y Attia D What’s in a name? Renaming ‘NAFLD’ to ‘MAFLD’ Liver Int 2020 40 1254 61 10.1111/liv.14478 32301554 Feng G Targher G Byrne CD Yilmaz Y Wai-Sun Wong V Adithya Lesmana CR et al. Global burden of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, 2010 to 2021 JHEP Rep 2024 7 101271 10.1016/j.jhepr.2024.101271 39980749 PMC11840544 Lonardo A Leoni S Alswat KA Fouad Y History of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Int J Mol Sci 2020 21 5888 10.3390/ijms21165888 32824337 PMC7460697 Ludwig J Viggiano TR McGill DB Oh BJ Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: Mayo Clinic experiences with a hitherto unnamed disease Mayo Clin Proc 1980 55 434 8 7382552 Schaffner F Thaler H Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease Prog Liver Dis 1986 8 283 98 3086934 Brunt EM What’s in a NAme? Hepatology 2009 50 663 7 10.1002/hep.23070 19585620 Eslam M Newsome PN Sarin SK Anstee QM Targher G Romero-Gomez M et al. A new definition for metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease: An international expert consensus statement J Hepatol 2020 73 202 9 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.03.039 32278004 Méndez-Sánchez N Bugianesi E Gish RG Lammert F Tilg H Nguyen MH et al. Global multi-stakeholder endorsement of the MAFLD definition Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022 7 388 90 10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00062-0 35248211 Polyzos SA Kang ES Tsochatzis EA Kechagias S Ekstedt M Xanthakos S et al. Commentary: Nonalcoholic or metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease? The epidemic of the 21st century in search of the most appropriate name Metabolism 2020 113 154413 10.1016/j.metabol.2020.154413 33164861 Lonardo A Extra-hepatic cancers in metabolic fatty liver syndromes Explor Dig Dis 2023 2 11 7 10.37349/edd.2023.00014 Chan KE Ng CH Fu CE Quek J Kong G Goh YJ et al. The Spectrum and Impact of Metabolic Dysfunction in MAFLD: A Longitudinal Cohort Analysis of 32,683 Overweight and Obese Individuals Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023 21 2560 9.e15 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.09.028 36202348 Ciardullo S Perseghin G From NAFLD to MAFLD and MASLD: a tale of alcohol, stigma and metabolic dysfunction Metab Target Organ Damage 2024 4 30 10.20517/mtod.2024.39 Ayonrinde OT Historical narrative from fatty liver in the nineteenth century to contemporary NAFLD—Reconciling the present with the past JHEP Rep 2021 3 100261 10.1016/j.jhepr.2021.100261 34036255 PMC8135048 Loria P Lonardo A Carulli N Should Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Be Renamed? Dig Dis 2005 23 72 82 10.1159/000084728 15920328 Bellentani S Tiribelli C Is it time to change NAFLD and NASH nomenclature? Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017 2 547 8 10.1016/S2468-1253(17)30146-2 28691681 Lonardo A Ballestri S Marchesini G Angulo P Loria P Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A precursor of the metabolic syndrome Dig Liver Dis 2015 47 181 90 10.1016/j.dld.2014.09.020 25739820 Ballestri S Zona S Targher G Romagnoli D Baldelli E Nascimbeni F et al. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is associated with an almost twofold increased risk of incident type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016 31 936 44 10.1111/jgh.13264 26667191 Jamalinia M Zare F Mantovani A Targher G Lonardo A Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and sex-specific risk of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events: A meta-analysis Diabetes Obes Metab 2025 10.1111/dom.16568 40566760 Lonardo A Association of NAFLD/NASH, and MAFLD/MASLD with chronic kidney disease: an updated narrative review Metab Target Organ Damage 2024 4 16 10.20517/mtod.2024.07 Mantovani A Lonardo A Stefan N Targher G Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and extrahepatic gastrointestinal cancers Metabolism 2024 160 156014 10.1016/j.metabol.2024.156014 39182602 Li YS Xia YG Liu YL Jiang WR Qiu HN Wu F et al. Metabolic-dysfunction associated steatotic liver disease-related diseases, cognition and dementia: A two-sample mendelian randomization study PLoS One 2024 19 e0297883 10.1371/journal.pone.0297883 38422093 PMC10903857 Li AA Ahmed A Kim D Extrahepatic Manifestations of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Gut Liver 2020 14 168 78 10.5009/gnl19069 31195434 PMC7096231 Xiao J Ng CH Chan KE Fu C Tay P Yong JN et al. Hepatic, Extra-hepatic Outcomes and Causes of Mortality in NAFLD—An Umbrella Overview of Systematic Review of Meta-Analysis J Clin Exp Hepatol 2023 13 656 65 10.1016/j.jceh.2022.11.006 37440949 PMC10333954 Fu CE Ng CH Yong JN Chan KE Xiao J Nah B et al. A Meta-analysis on Associated Risk of Mortality in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Endocr Pract 2023 29 33 9 10.1016/j.eprac.2022.10.007 36273685 Lugari S Baldelli E Lonardo A Metabolic primary liver cancer in adults: risk factors and pathogenic mechanisms Metab Target Organ Damage 2023 3 5 10.20517/mtod.2022.38 Hagström H Kechagias S Ekstedt M Risk for hepatic and extra-hepatic outcomes in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease J Intern Med 2022 292 177 89 10.1111/joim.13343 34118091 Akbari C Dodd M Stål P Nasr P Ekstedt M Kechagias S et al. Long-term major adverse liver outcomes in 1,260 patients with non-cirrhotic NAFLD JHEP Rep 2023 6 100915 10.1016/j.jhepr.2023.100915 38293684 PMC10827505 McPherson S Hardy T Henderson E Burt AD Day CP Anstee QM Evidence of NAFLD progression from steatosis to fibrosing-steatohepatitis using paired biopsies: Implications for prognosis and clinical management J Hepatol 2015 62 1148 55 10.1016/j.jhep.2014.11.034 25477264 Singh S Allen AM Wang Z Prokop LJ Murad MH Loomba R Fibrosis Progression in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver vs Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Paired-Biopsy Studies Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015 13 643 54.e1 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.04.014 24768810 PMC4208976 Vilar-Gomez E Calzadilla-Bertot L Wai-Sun Wong V Castellanos M Aller-de la Fuente R Metwally M et al. Fibrosis Severity as a Determinant of Cause-Specific Mortality in Patients With Advanced Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Multi-National Cohort Study Gastroenterology 2018 155 443 57.e17 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.04.034 29733831 Grgurevic I Podrug K Mikolasevic I Kukla M Madir A Tsochatzis EA Natural History of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Implications for Clinical Practice and an Individualized Approach Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020 2020 9181368 10.1155/2020/9181368 32051820 PMC6995480 Jarvis H Craig D Barker R Spiers G Stow D Anstee QM et al. Metabolic risk factors and incident advanced liver disease in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD): A systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based observational studies PLoS Med 2020 17 e1003100 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003100 32353039 PMC7192386 Mantovani A Petracca G Beatrice G Tilg H Byrne CD Targher G Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and risk of incident diabetes mellitus: an updated meta-analysis of 501,022 adult individuals Gut 2021 70 962 9 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322572 32938692 Lonardo A Lugari S Ballestri S Nascimbeni F Baldelli E Maurantonio M A round trip from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease to diabetes: molecular targets to the rescue? Acta Diabetol 2019 56 385 96 10.1007/s00592-018-1266-0 30519965 Chung GE Han K Lee KN Cho EJ Bae JH Yang SY et al. Combined Effects of Chronic Kidney Disease and Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease on the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients with Diabetes Biomedicines 2022 10 1245 10.3390/biomedicines10061245 35740267 PMC9219946 Le MH Yeo YH Henry L Nguyen MH Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and Renal Function Impairment: A Cross—Sectional Population-Based Study on Its Relationship From 1999 to 2016 Hepatol Commun 2019 3 1334 46 10.1002/hep4.1408 31592492 PMC6771162 Hydes TJ Kennedy OJ Buchanan R Cuthbertson DJ Parkes J Fraser SDS et al. The impact of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and liver fibrosis on adverse clinical outcomes and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease: a prospective cohort study using the UK Biobank BMC Med 2023 21 185 10.1186/s12916-023-02891-x 37198624 PMC10193672 Lonardo A Stefan N Mantovani A Widening research horizons on metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and cancer Trends Endocrinol Metab 2025 36 610 3 10.1016/j.tem.2024.12.009 39794250 Zhao Q Deng Y Comparison of mortality outcomes in individuals with MASLD and/or MAFLD J Hepatol 2024 80 e62 4 10.1016/j.jhep.2023.08.003 37574168 Ramírez-Mejía MM Jiménez-Gutiérrez C Eslam M George J Méndez-Sánchez N Breaking new ground: MASLD vs. MAFLD—which holds the key for risk stratification? Hepatol Int 2024 18 168 78 10.1007/s12072-023-10620-y 38127259 Zhou XD Lonardo A Pan CQ Shapiro MD Zheng MH WMU MAFLD Clinical Research Working Group Clinical features and long-term outcomes of patients diagnosed with MASLD, MAFLD, or both J Hepatol 2024 81 e157 9 10.1016/j.jhep.2024.03.039 38554846 Park HJ Lee S Lee JS Differences in the prevalence of NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD according to changes in the nomenclature in a health check-up using MRI-derived proton density fat fraction Abdom Radiol (NY) 2024 49 3036 44 10.1007/s00261-024-04285-w 38587630 Mori K Akiyama Y Tanaka M Sato T Endo K Hosaka I et al. Deciphering metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: insights from predictive modeling and clustering analysis J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024 39 1382 93 10.1111/jgh.16552 38629681 Pan Z Shiha G Esmat G Méndez-Sánchez N Eslam M MAFLD predicts cardiovascular disease risk better than MASLD Liver Int 2024 44 1567 74 10.1111/liv.15931 38641962 Kim D Wijarnpreecha K Cholankeril G Ahmed A Steatotic liver disease-associated all-cause/cause-specific mortality in the United States Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2024 60 33 42 10.1111/apt.18011 38649335 Wu T Ye J Mo S Ye M Li X Li Q et al. Impact of nomenclature as metabolic associated steatotic liver disease on steatotic liver disease prevalence and screening: a prospective population survey in Asians J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024 39 1636 47 10.1111/jgh.16554 38695344 Pan Z Derbala M AlNaamani K Ghazinian H Fan JG Eslam M MAFLD criteria are better than MASLD criteria at predicting the risk of chronic kidney disease Ann Hepatol 2024 29 101512 10.1016/j.aohep.2024.101512 38710473 Pan Z Al-Busafi SA Abdulla M Fouad Y Sebastiani G Eslam M MAFLD identifies patients with significant hepatic fibrosis better than MASLD Hepatol Int 2024 18 964 72 10.1007/s12072-024-10673-7 38717690 Bao X Kang L Yin S Engström G Wang L Xu W et al. Association of MAFLD and MASLD with all-cause and cause-specific dementia: a prospective cohort study Alzheimers Res Ther 2024 16 136 10.1186/s13195-024-01498-5 38926784 PMC11201326 Mayén AL Sabra M Aglago EK Perlemuter G Voican C Ramos I et al. Hepatic steatosis, metabolic dysfunction and risk of mortality: findings from a multinational prospective cohort study BMC Med 2024 22 221 10.1186/s12916-024-03366-3 38825687 PMC11145823 Pennisi G Infantino G Celsa C Di Maria G Enea M Vaccaro M et al. Clinical outcomes of MAFLD versus NAFLD: A meta-analysis of observational studies Liver Int 2024 44 2939 49 10.1111/liv.16075 39157862 Jiang M Pan Z George J Eslam M Clinical features and mortality outcomes of patients with MASLD only compared to those with MAFLD and MASLD Hepatol Int 2024 18 1731 9 10.1007/s12072-024-10721-2 39196505 Kang MK Song JE Loomba R Park SY Tak WY Kweon YO et al. Comparative associations of MASLD and MAFLD with the presence and severity of coronary artery calcification Sci Rep 2024 14 22917 10.1038/s41598-024-74287-7 39358447 PMC11447001 Pan Z Eslam M panel of collaborators The MASLD criteria overlook a number of adolescent patients with severe steatosis J Hepatol 2024 81 e80 1 10.1016/j.jhep.2024.03.042 38556112 Vaz K Kemp W Majeed A Lubel J Magliano DJ Glenister KM et al. MAFLD but not MASLD increases risk of all-cause mortality in regional Australia, with components of metabolic syndrome exacerbating factors: 20 year longitudinal, cohort study Hepatol Int 2025 19 384 94 10.1007/s12072-024-10748-5 39673677 Peng HY Lu CL Zhao M Huang XQ Huang SX Zhuo ZW et al. Clinical characteristics of MASLD/MetALD/MAFLD/NAFLD and the relative risk analysis on metabolic disorders BMC Gastroenterol 2025 25 372 10.1186/s12876-025-03912-0 40369430 PMC12079820 Jin H Liang Z Hu X Li X Liu Z Qiao Y et al. Comparative association of MAFLD/MASLD and Subtypes with Cardiovascular Diseases Outcomes Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2025 35 104024 10.1016/j.numecd.2025.104024 40189471 Argo CK Northup PG Al-Osaimi AMS Caldwell SH Systematic review of risk factors for fibrosis progression in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis J Hepatol 2009 51 371 9 10.1016/j.jhep.2009.03.019 19501928 Lonardo A Ballestri S Baffy G Weiskirchen R Liver fibrosis as a barometer of systemic health by gauging the risk of extrahepatic disease Metab Target Organ Damage 2024 4 41 10.20517/mtod.2024.42 Alboraie M Tanwandee T Xu X Nikolova D Estupiñan EC Ghazinyan H et al. Global multi-societies endorsement of the MAFLD definition Ann Hepatol 2024 29 101573 10.1016/j.aohep.2024.101573 39477629 Eslam M Fan JG Yu ML Wong VW Cua IH Liu CJ et al. The Asian Pacific association for the study of the liver clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease Hepatol Int 2025 19 261 301 10.1007/s12072-024-10774-3 40016576 Zhang L El-Shabrawi M Baur LA Byrne CD Targher G Kehar M et al. An international multidisciplinary consensus on pediatric metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease Med 2024 5 797 815.e2 10.1016/j.medj.2024.03.017 38677287 Hasanoglu I Rivero-Juárez A Özkaya Şahin G Escmid Study Group For Viral Hepatitis Esgvh When Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease Meets Viral Hepatitis J Clin Med 2025 14 3422 10.3390/jcm14103422 40429417 PMC12112634 Lee MH Chen YT Huang YH Lu SN Yang TH Huang JF et al. Chronic Viral Hepatitis B and C Outweigh MASLD in the Associated Risk of Cirrhosis and HCC Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024 22 1275 85.e2 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.01.045 38365094 Alboraie M Butt AS Piscoya A Dao Viet H Hotayt B Al Awadhi S et al. Why MASLD Lags Behind MAFLD: A Critical Analysis of Diagnostic Criteria Evolution in Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Liver Diseases Med Sci Monit 2024 30 e945198 10.12659/MSM.945198 39075772 PMC11299466 Cusi K Younossi Z Roden M From NAFLD to MASLD: Promise and pitfalls of a new definition Ann Hepatol 2024 29 101179 10.1016/j.aohep.2023.101179 38944463 Henry L Paik JM Younossi ZM Reply to: Correspondence on “clinical profiles and mortality rates are similar for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease' J Hepatol 2024 81 e160 1 10.1016/j.jhep.2024.05.024 38789012 Ciardullo S The MAFLD-MASLD debate: Does cardiovascular risk prediction define the winner? Liver Int 2024 44 1564 6 10.1111/liv.15950 38886912 Petrie E Gray M Bril F Metabolic characteristics of patients with MetALD: Caveats of a new definition Liver Int 2024 44 2929 38 10.1111/liv.16034 39152688 Gofton C Upendran Y Zheng MH George J MAFLD: How is it different from NAFLD? Clin Mol Hepatol 2023 29 S17 31 10.3350/cmh.2022.0367 36443926 PMC10029949 Zhang H Targher G Byrne CD Kim SU Wong VW Valenti L et al. MAFLD ICD-11 coding collaborators A global survey on the use of the international classification of diseases codes for metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease Hepatol Int 2024 18 1178 201 10.1007/s12072-024-10702-5 38878111 Sanal MG Gish RG Méndez-Sánchez N Yu ML Chan WK Wei L et al. NAFLD to MAFLD: collaboration, not confusion—rethinking the naming of fatty liver disease Metab Target Organ Damage 2024 4 45 10.20517/mtod.2024.54 Eslam M George J Two years on, a perspective on MAFLD eGastroenterology 2023 1 e100019 10.1136/egastro-2023-100019 39943998 PMC11770426 Alboraie M Fouad Y Eslam M Letter to the Editor: MAFLD versus MASLD—Which is more appropriate from a global perspective? Hepatology 2024 80 E42 3 10.1097/HEP.0000000000000886 38713880 Jiang M Butt AS Cua IH Pan Z Al-Busafi SA Méndez-Sánchez N et al. MAFLD vs. MASLD: a year in review Expert Rev Endocrinol Metab 2025 20 267 78 10.1080/17446651.2025.2492767 40237514 Miao L Ye S Zheng MH Global Chinese Fatty Liver Collaborative Global Obesity Collaborative “Fatty” or “steatotic”: Position statement from a linguistic perspective by the Chinese-speaking community J Hepatol 2025 82 e102 4 10.1016/j.jhep.2024.05.031 38823502 Angeli P Democracy in Science J Hepatol 2024 80 676 7 10.1016/j.jhep.2024.01.013 38360440 Fouad Y Elwakil R Elsahhar M Said E Bazeed S Ali Gomaa A et al. The NAFLD-MAFLD debate: Eminence vs evidence Liver Int 2021 41 255 60 10.1111/liv.14739 33220154 Pan Z Eslam M MAFLD or MASLD: Let the evidence decide again Ann Hepatol 2024 29 101521 10.1016/j.aohep.2024.101521 38862036 Portincasa P Baffy G Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: Evolution of the final terminology Eur J Intern Med 2024 124 35 9 10.1016/j.ejim.2024.04.013 38653634 García-Compeán D Jiménez-Rodríguez AR NAFLD VS MAFLD. The evidence-based debate has come. Time to change? Ann Hepatol 2022 27 100765 10.1016/j.aohep.2022.100765 36179795 Anand AC MASLD, MLA Pesarattu and Other Developments J Clin Exp Hepatol 2025 15 102465 10.1016/j.jceh.2024.102465 39720265 Semmler G Wernly B Datz C What’s in a name? New nomenclature for steatotic liver disease—to be or not to be? J Hepatol 2024 80 e56 8 10.1016/j.jhep.2023.07.035 37567365 Zerehpooshnesfchi S Lonardo A Fan JG Elwakil R Tanwandee T Altarrah MY et al. Dual etiology vs. MetALD: how MAFLD and MASLD address liver diseases coexistence Metab Target Organ Damage 2025 5 15 10.20517/mtod.2025.04 Pan Z Yilmaz Y Al-Busafi SA Eslam M The MAFLD definition identifies three homogenous groups of patients Liver Int 2024 44 3287 9 10.1111/liv.16096 39225000