Key result
SAFE outperforms FIB-4 in detecting significant fibrosis in adults with cardiometabolic risk factors.
Why the study?
Noninvasive tools such as FIB-4 and SAFE are used for fibrosis risk stratification, but their comparative diagnostic accuracy for clinically significant fibrosis in adults with cardiometabolic risk factors is unclear.
Does the SAFE score improve diagnostic accuracy for clinically significant fibrosis compared to FIB-4 in adults with cardiometabolic risk factors?
Cross-Sectional (n=2,196)
Does the SAFE score improve diagnostic accuracy for clinically significant fibrosis compared to FIB-4 in adults with cardiometabolic risk factors?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.719% vs 0.578%
p-value: p=< 0.001
The SAFE score outperforms FIB-4 as a noninvasive screening tool for clinically significant liver fibrosis in patients with cardiometabolic risk factors.
May support SAFE over FIB-4 for cardiometabolic screening; extends evidence but warrants prospective validation before adoption.
BACKGROUND: Steatotic liver disease (SLD), largely driven by cardiometabolic dysfunction, affects nearly one-third of the global population and may progress to advanced fibrosis. Although liver biopsy remains the gold standard for fibrosis assessment, noninvasive tools such as the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) and the recently developed steatosis-associated fibrosis estimator (SAFE) score are used risk stratification. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of FIB-4 and SAFE for detecting clinically significant fibrosis in adults with cardiometabolic risk factors. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 2196 adults aged 18-80 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2017-2020) with valid liver stiffness measurements (LSM) by FibroScan. Individuals with known chronic liver disease, excessive alcohol use, or missing data were excluded. Clinically significant fibrosis was defined as LSM ≥ 8.0 kPa. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: SAFE demonstrated superior discrimination compared with FIB-4 (AUC 0.719 vs. 0.578; P < 0.001). As a rule-out test, SAFE showed higher sensitivity (78% vs. 41%) and negative predictive value (95% vs. 91%). FIB-4 missed 58.6% of patients with significant fibrosis, whereas SAFE missed 22%. SAFE consistently outperformed FIB-4 across age, sex, MASLD status, and glycemic control subgroups. CONCLUSION: These findings support the use of SAFE over FIB-4 as a noninvasive screening tool for significant fibrosis in patients with cardiometabolic risk factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aydin et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiometabolic risk factors (n=2,196). SAFE score vs. FIB-4 score was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy for clinically significant fibrosis (LSM ≥ 8.0 kPa) (p=< 0.001). The SAFE score demonstrated superior discrimination compared with FIB-4 for detecting clinically significant fibrosis in adults with cardiometabolic risk factors (AUC 0.719 vs. 0.578; P < 0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: