Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Apr 14;18(4):e0282633. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282633

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and cognitive impairment: A prospective cohort study

Mary Cushman 1,2,*, Peter W Callas 1,3, Kristine S Alexander 1, Virginia Wadley 4, Neil A Zakai 1,2, Steven D Lidofsky 1, Frederick W Unverzagt 5, Suzanne E Judd 6
Editor: Nicholette D Palmer7
PMCID: PMC10104321  PMID: 37058527

Abstract

Background & aims

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is prevalent and may affect cognitive function. We studied associations of NAFLD with risk of cognitive impairment. Secondarily we evaluated liver biomarkers (alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), their ratio, and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase).

Methods

In a prospective cohort study, the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke, among 30,239 black and white adults aged ≥45,495 cases of incident cognitive impairment were identified over 3.4 years follow up. Cognitive impairment was identified as new impairment in two of three cognitive tests administered every two years during follow up; word list learning and recall, and verbal fluency. 587 controls were selected from an age, race, sex-stratified sample of the cohort. The fatty liver index was used to define baseline NAFLD. Liver biomarkers were measured using baseline blood samples.

Results

NAFLD at baseline was associated with a 2.01-fold increased risk of incident cognitive impairment in a minimally adjusted model (95% CI 1.42, 2.85). The association was largest in those aged 45–65 (p interaction by age = 0.03), with the risk 2.95-fold increased (95% CI 1.05, 8.34) adjusting for cardiovascular, stroke and metabolic risk factors. Liver biomarkers were not associated with cognitive impairment, except AST/ALT >2, with an adjusted OR 1.86 (95% CI 0.81, 4.25) that did not differ by age.

Conclusions

A laboratory-based estimate of NAFLD was associated with development of cognitive impairment, particularly in mid-life, with a tripling in risk. Given its high prevalence, NAFLD may be a major reversible determinant of cognitive health.

Introduction

Cognitive impairment is increasing with the aging of the global population, and risk factor levels at younger age contribute to this burden [1]. The prevalence of liver disease and cirrhosis is also increasing [2] and a recognized complication of the latter is hepatic encephalopathy, a condition manifested by alterations in the level of consciousness attributable to increased levels of potentially neurotoxic compounds usually filtered by the liver. Although most individuals with cirrhosis do not have overt hepatic encephalopathy, a form of subclinical neurocognitive impairment, minimal hepatic encephalopathy, is relatively common in this population [3, 4]. Whether chronic liver disease without cirrhosis affects cognitive function remains uncertain, and the pathways of an association are unclear. Simply considered, toxin accumulation might cause neuronal damage, as might lowered production of protective substances [5].

The most common form of chronic liver disease in industrialized nations is nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), a metabolic disorder characterized by hepatocellular fat overload and injury in the absence of significant alcohol use. NAFLD is present in 30% of American adults, and increasing with the obesity epidemic[2]. Little is known about its impact on cognitive function [610].

As a manifestation of the metabolic syndrome [11], NAFLD frequently occurs when there are multiple cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity and dyslipidemia [12]. Both metabolic syndrome and diabetes are themselves associated with cognitive decline and dementia [13]. In much older adults this relationship is reversed, perhaps related to weight loss marking other conditions associated with cognition [1416]. Two epidemiological studies suggested that the association of NAFLD with cognitive function or relevant brain imaging parameters was greater in younger than older people [17, 18]. Consequently, we hypothesized that NAFLD would be associated with cognitive impairment and the association would be greater among younger people.

To test this, we investigated the relationship between NAFLD and incident cognitive impairment in a national US cohort, the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS). The fatty liver index (FLI), a surrogate marker of NAFLD with reasonable validity [1921], was used to estimate NAFLD. Secondarily, we studied associations of individual liver disease biomarkers with cognitive impairment.

Materials and methods

Cohort

The REGARDS study is a National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, and National Institute on Aging funded study investigating reasons for racial and regional differences in stroke mortality and cognitive impairment. Details on the study design were previously published [22]. There are 30,239 participants in REGARDS, 45 years of age and older at recruitment (2003–07), located throughout the contiguous United States, with 56% living in the stroke belt of the southeastern U.S. (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana). After telephone-based enrollment and an in-home visit for data collection, participants were followed by telephone every 6 months. Participants self-identified as Black (41%) or White (59%) and 55% were women.

Standard protocol approvals and patient consents

All study procedures, including the consent process, were reviewed and approved by the institutional review boards of the collaborating institutions (University of Alabama at Birmingham Institutional Review Board, University of Vermont Committee on Human Research, University of Cincinnati Institutional Review Board, Wake Forest University Institutional Review Board). Telephone interviewers were trained to identify participants who answered questions in a way that indicated lack of comprehension. Potential participants who were able to respond to telephone questions provided verbal consent, which was followed up with written consent at an in home visit.

Cognitive assessments

Cases of incident cognitive impairment were defined as previously published using four cognitive tests administered by telephone: the Six-item Screener used at baseline [23], and an animal fluency test, a word list learning test and word list recall given in staggered fashion every two years during follow-up [24]. Test scores on each of the latter three tests were considered impaired if the most recent administration at the time of case identification for this study was more than 1.5 standard deviations below age- race- sex- and education-adjusted mean scores [25]. This definition allowed for correction for demographic factors on test performance. Incident cognitive impairment was defined as impaired scores on at least two of the three follow-up tests at the most recent administration, among participants with a normal Six-item Screener at baseline.

Study design

As previously reported [25] we used a nested case-control study design after 3.4 years of follow up to study the relationship between biomarkers and risk of cognitive impairment. We excluded participants with baseline self-reported stroke, baseline cognitive impairment on the Six-item Screener, insufficient cognitive testing, or anomalous data. Among the remaining 17,630 participants, we identified 495 cases of incident cognitive impairment. From an 1100-person random sample of the cohort selected for a case-cohort study of stroke outcomes [26], we selected 587 unmatched controls that met the eligibility criteria applied to cases. The 1100-person random sample was selected to provide sufficient representation of each race group, both genders, and age groups 45 to 54 (20%), 55 to 64 (20%), 65 to 74 (25%), 75 to 84 (25%), and ≥85 (10%). The flow chart describing this nested case-control study sample selection was previously published [25].

Laboratory

Baseline fasting blood samples were obtained at the in-home visit, processed, and shipped on ice overnight to the University of Vermont, where they were centrifuged and stored at -80°C [27]. Lipid profile and glucose were measured as previously reported [28]. In the case-control sample, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) were measured in serum using the Roche Elecsys 2010 analyzer (Roche Diagnostics Indianapolis, IN), with analytical inter-assay CV ranges 1.1%-5.4% for ALT, 1.8%-6.8% for AST, and 0.7%-3.0% for GGT.

Fatty liver index

The FLI is a surrogate marker for NAFLD, developed by Bedogni et al. for use in epidemiologic research where imaging studies or the gold standard liver biopsy, are not feasible [19]. In identifying NAFLD the FLI compares well to the presence of increased hepatic steatosis by ultrasound [20, 21, 29] and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy [30], but it does not quantitate the extent of steatosis. The FLI is calculated using the formula:

e0.953*log(triglycerides)+0.139*BMI+0.718*log(GGT)+0.053*waistcircumference15.7451+e0.953*log(triglycerides)+0.139*BMI+0.718*log(GGT)+0.053*waistcircumference15.745×100

An FLI >60 suggests NAFLD (probability to have NAFLD is 78%), and FLI <20 has a high sensitivity to rule out NAFLD (probability to not have NAFLD 91%) [19, 31]. Individuals with FLI >60 in the absence of heavy alcohol intake, as defined below, were considered to have NAFLD.

Covariates

All covariates were based on data collected at baseline. Race, alcohol drinks per week, income, physical activity level and prebaseline stroke were established by participant self-report, and diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia were defined using study measurements as previously described [32]. Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) was established by electrocardiogram [33] and atrial fibrillation was determined by self-report or presence on the baseline electrocardiogram. Diabetes was defined as fasting glucose ≥ 126 mg dL−1, nonfasting glucose ≥ 200 mg dL−1, or self-reported use of medications for diabetes. Dyslipidemia was defined based on definitions at REGARDS baseline as total cholesterol ≥240 mg/dL low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥160 mg/dL, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≤40 mg/dL, or self-reported current use of lipid lowering therapy. Body-mass index (BMI) was calculated using baseline measured height and weight, with weight measured using a standard 136 kilogram calibrated scale and height measured with a 2.5 meter metal tape measure and square, both measured without shoes. Alcohol use was classified as none, moderate (≤14 drinks/week for men, ≤7 drinks/week for women, or heavy (>14 drinks/week for men or >7 drinks/week for women). Education was categorized as <high school, some college, and college graduate or higher. Yearly income was categorized as <$20,000, $20,000–34,999, $35,000–74,999, >$75,000 or refused to respond. Physical activity was categorized as any weekly exercise or none by response to the question, “How often each week to you exercise enough to work up a sweat” [34]. Baseline cardiovascular disease was defined as electrocardiogram evidence of myocardial infarction or self-reported myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass, angioplasty, stent, or peripheral artery disease.

Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were performed with SAS 9.3 (Cary, NC). Baseline participant characteristics by NAFLD status and case control status were tabulated with weighting based on age group, sex, race to account for the stratified control sample selection so that the characteristics would reflect those in the larger REGARDS cohort.

To estimate relative risk, odds ratios (OR) of incident cognitive impairment for NAFLD and liver biomarkers were calculated using weighted logistic regression models. For analysis of NAFLD those with heavy alcohol use were excluded. Multilevel categorical variables were assessed as indicator variables. Model 1 adjusted for baseline age, sex, region of residence and race. Model 2 additionally adjusted for baseline education and income. Model 3 additionally adjusted for baseline systolic blood pressure, LVH, smoking, cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, diabetes and hypertension medication use. Model 4 added baseline alcohol use, BMI, and physical activity to Model 3. We analyzed the liver markers AST, ALT, GGT in sex-specific quartiles based on their distribution in controls and per standard deviation (SD) increments. We assessed AST/ALT ratio, because a ratio greater than 2 is associated with long-term complications from chronic liver disease [35]. Interactions with age, race and sex were tested using cross-product terms with p <0.10 for the interaction term considered significant for NAFLD status and P <0.05 for individual liver markers (a more stringent threshold given multiple tests). The study had 90% power to detect on OR 1.45 for cognitive impairment with NAFLD with alpha 0.05.

Results

Participant characteristics

Overall there were 495 cases of incident cognitive impairment and 587 controls (representing 17,135 REGARDS participants eligible to become a case). Fig 1 shows the inclusion of cases and controls in the analysis of FLI and risk of cognitive impairment, and the proportion of each group classified with NAFLD. Few participants were heavy alcohol users; missing status for FLI related primary to missing stored blood samples.

Fig 1. Inclusion of cases and controls in the analysis of the association of FLI with risk of incident cognitive impairment.

Fig 1

Table 1 shows that those with NAFLD were more likely men, Black persons, were less well educated, had adverse cardiovascular risk profiles and higher ALT and GGT. They did not differ by age, alcohol use, income or prevalent cardiovascular disease. Table 2 presents the distribution of cardiovascular risk factors, NAFLD, and liver biomarkers in participants with incident cognitive impairment and controls. Cases were more likely to live in the stroke belt, have lower income, and had higher BMI, GGT, and blood pressure than controls and were more likely than controls to be smokers, and have diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and NAFLD. They were less likely to have moderate alcohol consumption.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics* by NAFLD status in the control group.

 Characteristic, mean or percent NAFLD No NAFLD
(FLI >60, n = 213; weighted n = 6476) (FLI <20, n = 110; weighted n = 3031)
Women, % 48 74
Black, % 39 29
Age, mean 63.7 64.2
Region, %
    Stroke belt 51 53
    Nonbelt 49 47
Education <high school, % 10 2
Income <$20,000 12 11
Hypertension, % 59 35
Left ventricular hypertrophy, % 9 1
Systolic Blood Pressure, mean 130 120
Body-mass Index, mean kg/m2 33.4 23.1
Current smoking, % 14 11
Exercise, % none 34 23
Dyslipidemia, % 69 34
Diabetes, % 30 5
Prevalent cardiovascular disease, % 15 11
Alcohol use, % moderate 40 40
AST, mean U/L 22 20
ALT, mean U/L 21 14
GGT, mean U/L 40 18

* Definitions of variables can be found in the methods section.

Abbreviations: NAFLD, Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; FLI, fatty liver index; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; GGT, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase

Table 2. Levels of risk factors, NAFLD, and liver biomarkers in incident cognitive impairment cases and controls.

 Characteristic, mean (SD) or percent Cognitive Impairment Cases Controls
(n = 495) (weighted n = 17,135)
Women, % 59 57
Black, % 33 36
Age, mean 64.6 (10.2) 64.1 (8.7)
Region, %
    Stroke Belt 66 52
    Non Stroke Belt 35 48
Education <high school, % 8 7
Income <$20,000 25 12
Hypertension, % 55 51
Left ventricular hypertrophy, % 12 7
Systolic Blood Pressure, mean 128 126
Body-mass Index, mean kg/m2 30.0 (6.1) 29.2 (5.6)
Current smoking, % 17 12
Exercise, % none 38 32
Dyslipidemia, % 58 56
Diabetes, % 28 18
Prevalent cardiovascular disease, % 21 14
Alcohol use, %
    Heavy 2 5
    Moderate 28 34
NAFLD Status
    NAFLD, % FLI >60 54 43
    NO NAFLD, % FLI <20 14 21
AST, mean U/L 21 21
ALT, mean U/L 18 18
GGT, mean U/L 38 30

†FLI was missing in 128 participants (76 cases, 52 controls) AST in 123 (78 cases, 45 controls), ALT in 117 (75 cases, 42 controls), and GGT in 111 (72 cases, 39 controls). Primary reasons for missing data were absence of blood samples, which was missing at random.

Abbreviations: NAFLD, Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; FLI, fatty liver index; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; GGT, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase

Associations of NAFLD with cognitive impairment

NAFLD was significantly associated with incident cognitive impairment in the minimally-adjusted Model 1 (OR: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.42, 2.85). There were no significant differences in this relationship by sex (p interaction 0.45) or race (p interaction 0.44), however, as shown in Table 3, there was a nearly 4-fold increased risk in those under age 65 and no association above age 65 (p for age interaction 0.03). Results were similar across the four adjusted models, with modest attenuation in the fully adjusted Model 4 (OR 2.95; 95% CI 1.05, 8.34).

Table 3. Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of cognitive impairment by NAFLD.

Age-Stratified OR of Cognitive Impairment by FLI >60 vs <20
Model < 65 years 65-<75 years 75+ years
n = 213 (7807)§ n = 130 (5113)§ n = 67 (1925)§
1 3.84 (2.12, 6.96) 1.33 (0.61, 2.90) 0.76 (0.30, 1.91)
2 4.63 (2.38, 8.99) 1.24 (0.49, 3.10) 0.87 (0.37, 2.43)
3 3.60 (1.54, 8.42) 1.16 (0.36, 3.69) 0.73 (0.18, 3.01)
4 2.95 (1.05, 8.34) 1.20 (0.23, 6.32) 0.76 (0.09, 6.72)

Abbreviations: NAFLD, Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; FLI, fatty liver index

† Model 1: adjusted for age, race, region, and sex

Model 2: additionally adjusted for education and income

Model 3: additionally adjusted for systolic blood pressure, left ventricular hypertrophy, smoking, prebaseline cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension medication use

Model 4: additionally adjusted for alcohol use, body-mass index, and physical activity

‡ P interaction for NAFLD and age in Model 1 = 0.03

§ weighted n of cases (noncases)

Associations of liver biomarkers with cognitive impairment

Fig 2 demonstrates that, after adjustment for risk factors (Model 4), none of the liver biomarkers were significantly associated with cognitive impairment, but those in the 2nd and 3rd quartiles of all three markers appeared to have lower risk. This U-shaped association in the fully adjusted models was not statistically significant except for GGT (p value for an added quadratic term for AST was 0.72, for ALT 0.12 and for GGT 0.03). None of the biomarkers differed in their association with cognitive impairment by race, sex, or age (all p interactions >0.05), except GGT, which interacted with age (p = 0.02). Unlike for NAFLD, stratified analyses of GGT and cognitive impairment by age groups did not reveal a pattern explaining this interaction.

Fig 2. Odds ratios of cognitive impairment by AST, ALT, and GGT.

Fig 2

ORs were calculated based on quartiles, comparing each higher quartile to the first quartile, and per SD increment. Quartiles were defined based on the distribution in controls. Diamond-shaped symbols denote Model 1 and squares denote Model 4 odds ratios. See Tables 3, 4 for model covariates.
Quartile cut-off values.
25% 50% 75%
AST
Men
Women

17
15

20
18

24
22
ALT
Men
Women

13
10

17
14

23
17
GGT
Men
Women

18
13

25
18

37
27
Abbreviations: AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; GGT, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase.

Finally, as shown in Table 4, AST/ALT ratio >2 was associated with a 2-fold higher risk of incident cognitive impairment in the minimally adjusted model (OR 2.05; 95% CI 1.16, 3.60), and this relationship was mildly attenuated adjusting for risk factors (OR 1.86; 95% CI 0.81, 4.25 in Model 4). There were no differences in this association by age, sex, or race (all p >0.50).

Table 4. Association of AST/ALT >2 with incident cognitive impairment.

Model OR (95% CI)
1 2.05 (1.16, 3.60)
2 1.72 (0.92, 3.21)
3 1.88 (0.85, 4.13)
4 1.86 (0.81, 4.25)

Abbreviations: AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase

† Model 1: adjusted for age, race, region, and sex

Model 2: additionally adjusted for education and income

Model 3: additionally adjusted for systolic blood pressure, left ventricular hypertrophy, smoking, prebaseline cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension medication use

Model 4: additionally adjusted for alcohol use, body-mass index and physical activity

Discussion

Here we demonstrate that NAFLD is a risk factor for incident cognitive impairment in a US population sample. As classified by the FLI, NAFLD was associated with a tripling in the risk of cognitive impairment among participants aged 45–65 with no association in older individuals up to age 100 at baseline. None of the individual liver biomarkers studied were associated with cognitive impairment, although AST/ALT ratio had a suggestive association that did not differ by age, race or sex. Findings add to a growing body of evidence that risk factors present at younger ages are important determinants of cognitive function [1].

Most research on the cognitive impacts of liver disease focused on effects of relatively severe chronic or acute liver dysfunction [4]. In healthier populations, some but not all cross-sectional studies indicated that individuals with NAFLD may have more cognitive impairment or dementia than controls [8, 9, 3639], and in a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of this topic, only one prospective study was available, and this was a small clinic population of 331 people with NAFLD and alcoholic liver disease who were followed over 3 years for functional difficulty and did not have follow up cognitive testing or a control group, so did not address the question of the relationship of NAFLD to incident cognitive impairment [10]. A subsequently published study from China involving 1,651 community-based participants followed for 4 years demonstrated a similar association of NAFLD with incident cognitive impairment (based on the mini-mental state exam only) as we observed here, with this association limited to those <65 years at baseline and no association in older people [18]. The Framingham Heart Study investigators provided relevant clinicopathological information, demonstrating a cross-sectional association of NAFLD with lower cerebral brain volume (but not hippocampal or white matter hyperintensity volumes) after adjustment for a variety of relevant confounders in cognitively normal participants [17]. Notably, similar to here, associations were larger in participants younger than 60 years of age. Considering a subset of 1287 well characterized Framingham participants (378 with NAFLD by imaging) there were no cross-sectional associations of NAFLD with test scores evaluating memory, abstract reasoning, visual perception, attention and executive function [39]. As NAFLD frequently occurs with obesity and diabetes, it can be difficult to separate the effects of liver steatosis from that of other components of the metabolic syndrome, which are associated with declines in cognition. In the current analysis adjustment for diabetes, body-mass index and a variety of other factors, did not confound the association of NAFLD with cognitive impairment. While residual confounding could be present, findings support the need to study reasons for this independent association.

Our finding that NAFLD was a stronger risk factor for development of cognitive impairment in participants <65 is consistent with the two studies mentioned above [17, 18], and with a number of studies showing that while obesity and the metabolic syndrome are risk factors for dementia in younger individuals [4042], this situation reverses later in life. Similar to here, one large study also reported a positive association of NAFLD by the FLI with cardiovascular disease in younger people, and an inverse association in older people [43]. Prospective studies in individuals age 65 and older in the U.S. [44, 45] and Australia [46], showed an inverse relationship between BMI and cognitive function, and a study of participants age 85 and older in the Netherlands [15] demonstrated a reduced risk of cognitive decline in those with the metabolic syndrome. Our results indicate that NAFLD, a manifestation of the metabolic syndrome, follows a similar pattern in its associations with cognitive impairment and with cardiovascular disease as reported by others [43]. These patterns from multiple studies may be due to competing risks for other outcomes, especially mortality, at older age. Also, in younger people there may be fewer adverse mechanisms affecting cognition, thus an association of NAFLD is detectable. At older age, multiple independent adverse pathways lead to cognitive impairment [47], likely muting any association of NAFLD with cognition.

Little is known about the relationship between the liver biomarkers AST, ALT, and GGT and cognition. Some evidence is emerging for GGT, a liver marker with pro-oxidant and inflammatory properties. In a cross-sectional study, GGT and AST were correlated with visual attention and verbal memory in veterans with alcohol dependence and post-traumatic stress disorder [48]. Higher GGT was associated with dementia in middle- and older-age Finnish men [49], and with cognitive decline and vascular dementia after age 80 [50], but genetic variation of GGT was not associated with risk of Alzheimer’s disease in the large International Genomics of Alzheimer’s Project, suggesting no causal relationship [51].

Despite no relationship of the individual biomarkers with incidence of cognitive impairment in this general population study, we observed a suggestive association of AST/ALT ratio. A recent report from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative showed cross-sectional associations of elevated ASL/ALT ratio with a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease, and including patients with or without cognitive disorders, with poorer cognitive function test scores and positron emission tomography and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers of amyloid, tau and neurodegeneration [52]. The only covariates considered in this study were age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and APOE ε4 status, so it is not clear that associations were independent of socioeconomic factors, alcohol use or cerebrovascular mechanisms. In the current study, socioeconomic factors had the largest attenuating effect on the association of AST/ALT with cognitive impairment (OR 2.05 to 1.72 after accounting for this). We did not account for APOE ε4 as it was not associated with our outcome of cognitive impairment. Nonetheless, together with findings from this prospective study, a causal relationship of liver disease and risk of cognitive impairment may be hypothesized. Increased AST/ALT ratio can be associated with alcohol damage and it can be observed with cirrhosis as well. However, cognitive impairment was not was not higher with alcohol use in REGARDS [53], and those with heavy alcohol use were excluded in the current study. It is thus possible that our findings reflect a contribution to cognitive impairment from unrecognized NAFLD related cirrhosis. Further investigation to test this would be appealing.

The main strength of this study is the use of a large biracial population-based prospective study, which provided nearly 500 well characterized incident cognitive impairment cases. Our definition of cognitive impairment accounted for the effects of age, race, sex, and education, so accounted for these factors. It also included testing in multiple cognitive domains, expanding on the little prior prospective data [18]. The main limitation of this work is the use of the FLI as a surrogate marker for NAFLD. While the FLI, unlike gold standards, cannot quantitatively assess liver fat, it compares well with ultrasound and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy determination of steatosis [21, 30], and has been related to risk of other outcomes like cardiovascular disease, hypertension and diabetes [43, 54, 55]. Consistency of our findings with others also supports validity of the FLI. Whether participants had cirrhosis or liver fibrosis is unknown. FLI presence may also relate closely to metabolic syndrome, and as such it would be difficult to separate the impacts of NAFLD and metabolic syndrome on risk of cognitive impairment. While we adjusted for factors involved in metabolic syndrome, we cannot say definitively that NAFLD is causal for the observed associations. While we excluded people with heavy alcohol use from analyses of NAFLD as an exposure, it remains possible some participants classified with NAFLD had alcohol-related liver disease. Generalizability of the study sample was limited to Black and White persons in the US, so results require replication in other contexts. While the classification used for cognitive impairment has clinical relevance and is likely to identify those with significant impairment, telephone-based tests may lead to misclassification, and we do not know the sensitivity and specificity of our definition for dementia (especially in younger people). Dementia outcomes are not yet available in REGARDS. It is possible that associations of NAFLD with cognitive impairment were not apparent in older participants due to differential loss to follow up based on cognitive outcome, or unmeasured confounders impacting on the relationship between NAFLD and cognition in older people. It is also possible that the measures we used are more sensitive to detecting abnormal cognitive dysfunction related to NAFLD in younger than older people because there are less pathways to cognitive dysfunction in younger people.

In summary, this research demonstrated a tripling of the risk of incident cognitive impairment in middle-to-early-older age Black and White US residents with NAFLD. There were no associations for ALT, AST or GGT individually, and additional research is needed concerning the significance of the AST/ALT ratio findings. More study is also needed to determine the mechanisms behind our observations. If these findings are further confirmed, including in studies with better classification of NAFLD than FLI, given its high prevalence in western countries, NAFLD may be a major reversible determinant of impaired cognitive health.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the other investigators, the staff, and the participants of the REGARDS study for their valuable contributions. A full list of participating REGARDS investigators and institutions can be found at: https://www.uab.edu/soph/regardsstudy/.

Data Availability

The data underlying the findings include potentially identifying participant information, and cannot be made publicly available due to ethical/legal restrictions. However, data including statistical code from this paper are available to researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Data can be obtained upon request through the University of Alabama at Birmingham at regardsadmin@uab.edu.

Funding Statement

This research project is supported by cooperative agreement U01 NS041588 co-funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the National Institute on Aging (NIA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Service. Authors receiving funding from this grant: MC, VW, NAZ, FWU, SEJ. Additional funding from National Heart Lung and Blood Institute of NIH to KSA: T32HL007594. Representatives of the NINDS were involved in the study design but not in the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of the data, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Saver JL, Cushman M. Striving for Ideal Cardiovascular and Brain Health: It Is Never Too Early or Too Late. JAMA. 2018;320(7):645–7. Epub 2018/08/25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.11002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Le MH, Devaki P, Ha NB, Jun DW, Te HS, Cheung RC, et al. Prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and risk factors for advanced fibrosis and mortality in the United States. PloS one. 2017;12(3):e0173499. Epub 2017/03/28. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173499 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5367688. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Felipo V. Hepatic encephalopathy: effects of liver failure on brain function. Nature reviews Neuroscience. 2013;14(12):851–8. Epub 2013/10/24. doi: 10.1038/nrn3587 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Collie A. Cognition in liver disease. Liver international: official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver. 2005;25(1):1–8. Epub 2005/02/09. doi: 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2005.01012.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Marano M, Vespasiani Gentilucci U, Altamura C, Siotto M, Squitti R, Bucossi S, et al. Altered metal metabolism in patients with HCV-related cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy. Metab Brain Dis. 2015;30(6):1445–52. Epub 2015/08/27. doi: 10.1007/s11011-015-9721-x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lombardi R, Fargion S, Fracanzani AL. Brain involvement in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD): A systematic review. Dig Liver Dis. 2019;51(9):1214–22. Epub 2019/06/10. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2019.05.015 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Newton JL. Systemic symptoms in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Dig Dis. 2010;28(1):214–9. doi: 10.1159/000282089 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Seo SW, Gottesman RF, Clark JM, Hernaez R, Chang Y, Kim C, et al. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is associated with cognitive function in adults. Neurology. 2016;86(12):1136–42. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002498 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4820136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lampignano L, Donghia R, Griseta C, Lagravinese G, Sciarra S, Zupo R, et al. Liver Health and Dementia in an Italian Older Population: Findings From the Salus in Apulia Study. Front Aging Neurosci. 2021;13:748888. Epub 20211208. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2021.748888 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8692772. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.George ES, Sood S, Daly RM, Tan SY. Is there an association between non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cognitive function? A systematic review. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22(1):47. Epub 20220111. doi: 10.1186/s12877-021-02721-w ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8753832. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Marchesini G, Marzocchi R, Agostini F, Bugianesi E. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and the metabolic syndrome. Curr Opin Lipidol. 2005;16(4):421–7. doi: 10.1097/01.mol.0000174153.53683.f2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Liu H, Lu HY. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease. World journal of gastroenterology: WJG. 2014;20(26):8407–15. Epub 2014/07/16. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i26.8407 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4093693. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Panza F, Frisardi V, Capurso C, Imbimbo BP, Vendemiale G, Santamato A, et al. Metabolic syndrome and cognitive impairment: current epidemiology and possible underlying mechanisms. Journal of Alzheimer’s disease: JAD. 2010;21(3):691–724. Epub 2010/06/24. doi: 10.3233/JAD-2010-091669 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Luchsinger JA, Patel B, Tang MX, Schupf N, Mayeux R. Measures of adiposity and dementia risk in elderly persons. Archives of neurology. 2007;64(3):392–8. Epub 2007/03/14. doi: 10.1001/archneur.64.3.392 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1821350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.van den Berg E, Biessels GJ, de Craen AJ, Gussekloo J, Westendorp RG. The metabolic syndrome is associated with decelerated cognitive decline in the oldest old. Neurology. 2007;69(10):979–85. Epub 2007/09/06. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000271381.30143.75 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Luchsinger JA, Biggs ML, Kizer JR, Barzilay J, Fitzpatrick A, Newman A, et al. Adiposity and cognitive decline in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Neuroepidemiology. 2013;40(4):274–81. doi: 10.1159/000345136 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4044822. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Weinstein G, Zelber-Sagi S, Preis SR, Beiser AS, DeCarli C, Speliotes EK, et al. Association of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease With Lower Brain Volume in Healthy Middle-aged Adults in the Framingham Study. JAMA Neurol. 2018;75(1):97–104. Epub 2017/11/22. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.3229 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5833484. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Liu Q, Liu C, Hu F, Deng X, Zhang Y. Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and Longitudinal Cognitive Changes in Middle-Aged and Elderly Adults. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:738835. Epub 20220117. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.738835 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8803120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bedogni G, Bellentani S, Miglioli L, Masutti F, Passalacqua M, Castiglione A, et al. The Fatty Liver Index: a simple and accurate predictor of hepatic steatosis in the general population. BMC Gastroenterol. 2006;6:33. doi: 10.1186/1471-230X-6-33 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1636651. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Koehler EM, Schouten JN, Hansen BE, Hofman A, Stricker BH, Janssen HL. External validation of the fatty liver index for identifying nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a population-based study. Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology: the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association. 2013;11:1201–4. Epub 2013/01/29. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.12.031 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zelber-Sagi S, Webb M, Assy N, Blendis L, Yeshua H, Leshno M, et al. Comparison of fatty liver index with noninvasive methods for steatosis detection and quantification. World journal of gastroenterology: WJG. 2013;19(1):57–64. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i1.57 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3542754. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Howard VJ, Cushman M, Pulley L, Gomez CR, Go RC, Prineas RJ, et al. The reasons for geographic and racial differences in stroke study: objectives and design. Neuroepidemiology. 2005;25(3):135–43. doi: 10.1159/000086678 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Callahan CM, Unverzagt FW, Hui SL, Perkins AJ, Hendrie HC. Six-item screener to identify cognitive impairment among potential subjects for clinical research. Med Care. 2002;40(9):771–81. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200209000-00007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fillenbaum GG, Heyman A, Huber MS, Ganguli M, Unverzagt FW. Performance of elderly African American and White community residents on the CERAD Neuropsychological Battery. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2001;7(4):502–9. doi: 10.1017/s1355617701744062 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gillett SR, Thacker EL, Letter AJ, McClure LA, Wadley VG, Unverzagt FW, et al. Correlates of incident cognitive impairment in the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study. Clin Neuropsychol. 2015;29(4):466–86. doi: 10.1080/13854046.2015.1042524 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4504009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Cushman M, Callas PW, McClure LA, Unverzagt FW, Howard VJ, Gillett SR, et al. N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide and Risk of Future Cognitive Impairment in the REGARDS Cohort. Journal of Alzheimer’s disease: JAD. 2016;54(2):497–503. doi: 10.3233/JAD-160328 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gillett SR, Boyle RH, Zakai NA, McClure LA, Jenny NS, Cushman M. Validating laboratory results in a national observational cohort study without field centers: the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke cohort. Clinical biochemistry. 2014;47(16–17):243–6. Epub 2014/08/19. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.08.003 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5038129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Howard G, Wagenknecht LE, Kernan WN, Cushman M, Thacker EL, Judd SE, et al. Racial differences in the association of insulin resistance with stroke risk: the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study. Stroke. 2014;45(8):2257–62. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.005306 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4430474. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Carvalhana S, Leitao J, Alves AC, Bourbon M, Cortez-Pinto H. How good is controlled attenuation parameter and fatty liver index for assessing liver steatosis in general population: correlation with ultrasound. Liver international: official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver. 2013;34:e111–7. Epub 2013/09/17. doi: 10.1111/liv.12305 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Cuthbertson DJ, Weickert MO, Lythgoe D, Sprung VS, Dobson R, Shoajee-Moradie F, et al. External validation of the fatty liver index and lipid accumulation product indices, using 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy, to identify hepatic steatosis in healthy controls and obese, insulin-resistant individuals. Eur J Endocrinol. 2014;171(5):561–9. doi: 10.1530/EJE-14-0112 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Gastaldelli A, Kozakova M, Hojlund K, Flyvbjerg A, Favuzzi A, Mitrakou A, et al. Fatty liver is associated with insulin resistance, risk of coronary heart disease, and early atherosclerosis in a large European population. Hepatology. 2009;49(5):1537–44. doi: 10.1002/hep.22845 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Zakai NA, Judd SE, Alexander K, McClure LA, Kissela BM, Howard G, et al. ABO blood type and stroke risk: the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke Study. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12(4):564–70. doi: 10.1111/jth.12507 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4913462. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Soliman EZ, Howard G, Prineas RJ, McClure LA, Howard VJ. Calculating Cornell voltage from nonstandard chest electrode recording site in the Reasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke study. Journal of electrocardiology. 2010;43(3):209–14. Epub 2009/12/17. doi: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2009.10.002 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2856789. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wadley VG, McClure LA, Howard VJ, Unverzagt FW, Go RC, Moy CS, et al. Cognitive status, stroke symptom reports, and modifiable risk factors among individuals with no diagnosis of stroke or transient ischemic attack in the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study. Stroke. 2007;38(4):1143–7. Epub 20070222. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000259676.75552.38 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Botros M, Sikaris KA. The De Ritis ratio: the test of time. Clin Biochem Rev. 2013;34(3):117–30. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3866949. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Newton JL, Frith J. Fatigue, quality of life, and psychosocial issues for people with NAFLD. In: Farrell GC, McCullogh AJ, Day CP, editors. Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Practical Guide. New York, New York: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 122–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Elliott C, Frith J, Day CP, Jones DE, Newton JL. Functional impairment in alcoholic liver disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is significant and persists over 3 years of follow-up. Digestive diseases and sciences. 2013;58(8):2383–91. Epub 2013/04/24. doi: 10.1007/s10620-013-2657-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Celikbilek A, Celikbilek M, Bozkurt G. Cognitive assessment of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;30(8):944–50. Epub 2018/04/03. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000001131 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Weinstein G, Davis-Plourde K, Himali JJ, Zelber-Sagi S, Beiser AS, Seshadri S. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, liver fibrosis score and cognitive function in middle-aged adults: The Framingham Study. Liver international: official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver. 2019;39(9):1713–21. Epub 2019/06/04. doi: 10.1111/liv.14161 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6736704. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Whitmer RA, Gunderson EP, Quesenberry CP Jr, Zhou J, Yaffe K. Body mass index in midlife and risk of Alzheimer disease and vascular dementia. Current Alzheimer research. 2007;4(2):103–9. Epub 2007/04/14. doi: 10.2174/156720507780362047 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Siervo M, Harrison SL, Jagger C, Robinson L, Stephan BC. Metabolic syndrome and longitudinal changes in cognitive function: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Alzheimer’s disease: JAD. 2014;41(1):151–61. Epub 2014/03/01. doi: 10.3233/JAD-132279 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Whitmer RA, Gustafson DR, Barrett-Connor E, Haan MN, Gunderson EP, Yaffe K. Central obesity and increased risk of dementia more than three decades later. Neurology. 2008;71(14):1057–64. Epub 2008/03/28. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000306313.89165.ef . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kunutsor SK, Bakker SJL, Blokzijl H, Dullaart RPF. Associations of the fatty liver and hepatic steatosis indices with risk of cardiovascular disease: Interrelationship with age. Clin Chim Acta. 2017;466:54–60. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2017.01.008 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Fitzpatrick AL, Kuller LH, Lopez OL, Diehr P, O’Meara ES, Longstreth WT Jr, et al. Midlife and late-life obesity and the risk of dementia: cardiovascular health study. Archives of neurology. 2009;66(3):336–42. Epub 2009/03/11. doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2008.582 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3513375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Hughes TF, Borenstein AR, Schofield E, Wu Y, Larson EB. Association between late-life body mass index and dementia: The Kame Project. Neurology. 2009;72(20):1741–6. Epub 2009/05/20. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181a60a58 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2683740. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Power BD, Alfonso H, Flicker L, Hankey GJ, Yeap BB, Almeida OP. Body adiposity in later life and the incidence of dementia: the health in men study. PloS one. 2011;6(3):e17902. Epub 2011/04/06. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017902 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3064574. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Perneczky R, Kempermann G, Korczyn AD, Matthews FE, Ikram MA, Scarmeas N, et al. Translational research on reserve against neurodegenerative disease: consensus report of the International Conference on Cognitive Reserve in the Dementias and the Alzheimer’s Association Reserve, Resilience and Protective Factors Professional Interest Area working groups. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):47. Epub 20190227. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1283-z ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6391801. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kalapatapu RK, Delucchi KL, Lasher BA, Vinogradov S, Batki SL. Alcohol use biomarkers predicting cognitive performance: a secondary analysis in veterans with alcohol dependence and posttraumatic stress disorder. Military medicine. 2013;178(9):974–80. Epub 2013/09/06. doi: 10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00097 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3815580. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Kunutsor SK, Laukkanen JA. Gamma glutamyltransferase and risk of future dementia in middle-aged to older Finnish men: A new prospective cohort study. Alzheimers Dement. 2016;12(9):931–41. Epub 2016/04/23. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2016.03.003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Praetorius Bjork M, Johansson B. Gamma-Glutamyltransferase (GGT) as a biomarker of cognitive decline at the end of life: contrasting age and time to death trajectories. Int Psychogeriatr. 2018;30(7):981–90. Epub 2017/11/08. doi: 10.1017/S1041610217002393 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Kunutsor SK, Laukkanen JA, Burgess S. Genetically elevated gamma-glutamyltransferase and Alzheimer’s disease. Exp Gerontol. 2018;106:61–6. Epub 2018/03/06. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2018.03.001 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5915296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Nho K, Kueider-Paisley A, Ahmad S, MahmoudianDehkordi S, Arnold M, Risacher SL, et al. Association of Altered Liver Enzymes With Alzheimer Disease Diagnosis, Cognition, Neuroimaging Measures, and Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(7):e197978. Epub 2019/08/01. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.7978 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Alexander KS, Zakai NA, Lidofsky SD, Callas PW, Judd SE, Tracy RP, et al. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, liver biomarkers and stroke risk: The Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke cohort. PloS one. 2018;13(3):e0194153. Epub 2018/03/13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194153 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5847237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Bonnet F, Gastaldelli A, Pihan-Le Bars F, Natali A, Roussel R, Petrie J, et al. Gamma-glutamyltransferase, fatty liver index and hepatic insulin resistance are associated with incident hypertension in two longitudinal studies. J Hypertens. 2017;35(3):493–500. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001204 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Yadav D, Choi E, Ahn SV, Koh SB, Sung KC, Kim JY, et al. Fatty liver index as a simple predictor of incident diabetes from the KoGES-ARIRANG study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(31):e4447. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004447 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4979827. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Nicholette D Palmer

31 May 2022

PONE-D-22-08991Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and Cognitive Impairment: a Prospective Cohort StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cushman,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

 The revised manuscript should provide clarity on additional points as summarized by Reviewer 1 with additional stylistic and reference considerations from Reviewer 2.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 15 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nicholette D. Palmer, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Overall

This manuscript overall addresses a novel and interesting research question. Overall, the analysis has been well thought out and executed. I think with some changes to clarify details throughout (detailed below) and some clarity around the primary and secondary outcomes, and toning back the conclusions, this would be a publishable piece of work.

Abstract

Background/aims- Would clearly indicate primary aim and secondary aims (as all outcomes are listed together currently.

Methods- Were the controls derived from the same cohort? This isn’t clear

Results- NAFLD ‘at baseline’ was associated with a 2.01 fold…. I think you should be transparent as you don’t have follow up information regarding est NAFLD status

Conclusion- given you only have an est of NAFLD (no liver outcomes just estimates) and this is not a generalisable cohort I think your conclusion is an overstatement of your findings. Can you re word it to reflect these points?

Intro

Line 68/69- toxin production in chronic liver disease? Is this a likely stipulation?

Line 80- ‘the very old’ do you mean older adults? And this sentence needs to be reworded or better explained as I am not sure what you mean

Line 90- I don’t think FLI is a valid marker or NAFLD, rather a surrogate marker that has been shown to have reasonable validity in epidemiological studies. I would suggest you say it was used to ‘estimate’ NAFLD.

Line 87-90- your primary aim/ research question is not clear, can you phrase this as a primary outcome and X Y X (secondary outcomes) will also be assessed?

Methods

Line 155 – can you explain why you used a cut off below 20 not 30 for ruling out FLI?

Line 165-166- can you describe how alcohol intake was measured?

159- there are no descriptions of the methods or tools used to measure/ height, weight, physical activity etc

As per the STROBE guidelines, it would be helpful to include a flow chart describing the participant inclusion

Results

Definitions for exercise, dyslipidaemia, diabetes etc have not been made clear for table 1

I would consider combining Tables 1 and 2 as the variables are the same

Line 222- whats the definition of older age?

Discussion

Line 268- general ‘US’ population? The current wording is misleading

Line 279- and what did this study show?

Line 295- Given you adjusted for T2D, BMI and other risk factors and that did not explain your results, what does that suggest? This point is not complete

Line 310-311- this is a hypothesis? It is written as a fact and there is no reference?

319-320- your concluding sentence does not support the evidence you have presented in this paragraph

325- what are ‘patients who were normal’ what is normal?

Line 360- NAFLD – typo, and ‘strong associations’ is an overstatement as you need to state this is in a US population. I suggest you add the generalisability of your sample as a limitation further up and modify your conclusion to reflect this

Line 365- I think you can say liver specific outcomes rather than better classification which is unspecific

Line 365- NAFLD typo

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, I was pleased to read your manuscript. The authors wanted to see if there was a link between NAFLD (as measured by the computed FLI) and cognitive impairment as measured by a verbal fluency test, a word list learning test, and word list memory during phonecall follow-up visits in the REGARDS cohort. The findings were consistent with NAFLD playing a role in the development of cognitive impairment in participants aged 45 to 65.

The study's value comes in its huge sample size, although the NAFLD and cognitive assessments are inaccurate because to REGARDS cohort restrictions. The hypothesis appears to be supported by statistics and findings. In fact, the FLI is a method to calculate the risk of having hepatic steatosis, but it does not discriminate whether the cause is due to alcohol consumption or not. Even if you have corrected for this covariate, you should state this limitation of the FLI in your discussions. Likewise, you should state that the incidence of cognitive impairment is calculated on the basis of telephone tests and is not methodologically strong.

Your discussion would probably benefit from a recently published article on the subject. In the observed cohort, the clinical diagnosis of dementia was used and these results could support yours, albeit in a different population doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2021.748888.

Figure 1 is actually a table, which is also very impractical for the average reader, in my opinion. I suggest you revise and edit.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Apr 14;18(4):e0282633. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282633.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 Nov 2022

Response to Reviewers, PONE-D-22-08991

Reviewer #1: Overall

This manuscript overall addresses a novel and interesting research question. Overall, the analysis has been well thought out and executed. I think with some changes to clarify details throughout (detailed below) and some clarity around the primary and secondary outcomes, and toning back the conclusions, this would be a publishable piece of work.

We are grateful for the effort and detailed comments from the reviewer – thank you.

Abstract

Background/aims- Would clearly indicate primary aim and secondary aims (as all outcomes are listed together currently.

We modified the abstract for clarity:

Abstract: “We studied associations of NAFLD with risk of cognitive impairment. Secondarily we evaluated liver biomarkers (alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), their ratio, and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase).”

Methods- Were the controls derived from the same cohort? This isn’t clear

We specified that controls were from the cohort: “587 controls were selected from an age, race and sex-stratified cohort sample of the cohort.”

Results- NAFLD ‘at baseline’ was associated with a 2.01 fold…. I think you should be transparent as you don’t have follow up information regarding est NAFLD status

We did not study risk of NAFLD over time, nor did we suggest that the best we can tell; we defined it in the methods section as being measured at baseline. The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate baseline NAFLD with future cognitive impairment, not change in NAFLD. The prospective design is a major strength of the study and reduces the possibility of reverse causation. Lack of data on incidence of NAFLD is a limitation of the study that is common to most observational cohort studies, and is beyond the scope of this analysis as we don’t have information to study this. If we could measure NAFLD during follow up and evaluate it as a time-varying risk factor, we would likely observe a larger association of NAFLD with cognitive impairment due to improved classification of NAFLD status. We clarified that NAFLD was measured at baseline.

Conclusion- given you only have an est of NAFLD (no liver outcomes just estimates) and this is not a generalisable cohort I think your conclusion is an overstatement of your findings. Can you re word it to reflect these points?

-We reworded the conclusions to be more tempered as suggested, “A laboratory-based estimate of NAFLD was associated with contributes to development of cognitive impairment,…..”

-For the information of the reviewer, the study population is quite generalizable to age-similar Black and White adults in the US. In fact, they are more similar to US Census-captured people than Black and White participants of similar age in NHANES, which is sampled purposefully to represent the general US population. Nevertheless, we added a generalizability limitation to the Discussion section as requested below by the reviewer (since we didn’t study all possible people).

Intro

Line 68/69- toxin production in chronic liver disease? Is this a likely stipulation?

We do not understand the question. In the parenthetical phrase, we present two thoughts about why liver disease might relate to cognitive function. We introduced the word, neuronal to hopefully make it more clear: “toxin accumulation might cause neuronal damage, as might lowered production of protective substances.” Line 69

Line 80- ‘the very old’ do you mean older adults? And this sentence needs to be reworded or better explained as I am not sure what you mean

This was rephrased: “In much older adults this relationship is reversed..”

Line 90- I don’t think FLI is a valid marker or NAFLD, rather a surrogate marker that has been shown to have reasonable validity in epidemiological studies. I would suggest you say it was used to ‘estimate’ NAFLD.

Agreed; the wording was changed: “The fatty liver index (FLI), a surrogate marker of NAFLD with reasonable validity [18-20], was used to estimate NAFLD.”

Line 87-90- your primary aim/ research question is not clear, can you phrase this as a primary outcome and X Y X (secondary outcomes) will also be assessed?

Thank you - We modified the text for clarity: “To test this, we investigated the relationship between NAFLD and incident cognitive impairment in a national US cohort, the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS). The fatty liver index (FLI), a surrogate marker of NAFLD with reasonable validity [18-20], was used to estimate NAFLD. Secondarily, we studied associations of individual liver disease biomarkers with cognitive impairment.”

Methods

Line 155 – can you explain why you used a cut off below 20 not 30 for ruling out FLI?

We used a value of 20 as it is more restrictive to rule out NAFLD and we wanted to minimize misclassification as much as possible to define a reference group without NAFLD. According to a validation study by Bedogni and colleagues, if FLI is less than 20 the likelihood of not having NAFLD is greater than 91%. This value was used in at least one other epidemiology study that we cited (Gastaldelli, reference 31). We added reference 19 cited just above in this sentence. We added the rationale to the sentence: “An FLI >60 suggests NAFLD (probability to have NAFLD is 78%), and FLI <20 has a high sensitivity to rule out NAFLD (probability to not have NAFLD 91%.” Line 157.

Line 165-166- can you describe how alcohol intake was measured?

This was measured by self-report as stated (now line 164).

159- there are no descriptions of the methods or tools used to measure/ height, weight, physical activity etc

We had cited the source paper for this information (to minimize text length) but are now providing more information:

-Clarified which variables were self reported: “All covariates were based on data collected at baseline. Race, alcohol drinks per week, income, physical activity level and prebaseline stroke were established by participant self-report” line 164

-Height and weight were measured with standardized methods: “Body-mass index (BMI) was calculated using baseline measured height and weight, with weight measured using a standard 136 kilogram calibrated scale and height measured with 2.5 meter metal tape measure and square, both measured without shoes.” Line 173

-Physical activity was categorized as any weekly exercise or none by response to the question, “How often each week to you exercise enough to work up a sweat.” Line 180. We note that it has been remarkable in REGARDS papers that responses to this question identify people at risk of a variety of outcomes.

As per the STROBE guidelines, it would be helpful to include a flow chart describing the participant inclusion

We agree this is important. For selection of this nested case control study sample, this diagram was already published so we now refer the reader to the source, line 139: “The flow chart describing this nested case-control sample selection was previously published. [25] In addition, we added new Figure 1 to illustrate the inclusion of participants into the analysis of the association of FLI with risk of incident cognitive impairment.

New figure legend: Fig 1: Inclusion of cases and controls in the analysis of the association of FLI with risk of incident cognitive impairment.

New text, line 207: Fig 1 shows the inclusion of cases and controls in the analysis of FLI and risk of cognitive impairment, and the proportion of each group classified with NAFLD during follow up. Few participants were heavy alcohol users; missing status for FLI related primary to missing stored blood samples.

We removed previous text in this location that referred to the numbers in this figure.

Results

Definitions for exercise, dyslipidaemia, diabetes etc have not been made clear for table 1

-We had cited a source paper for these in the methods section, but now add the above definitions of covariates, and these, to the methods section starting on line 168: “Diabetes was defined as fasting glucose ≥ 126 mg dL−1, nonfasting glucose ≥ 200 mg dL−1, or self-reported use of medications for diabetes. Dyslipidemia was defined based on definitions at REGARDS baseline as total cholesterol ≥240 mg/dL low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥160 mg/dL, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≤40 mg/dL, or self-reported current use of lipid lowering therapy.”

-A footnote was added to table 1, “* Definitions of variables can be found in the methods section.

I would consider combining Tables 1 and 2 as the variables are the same

We prefer to keep the tables separate as Table 1 only refers to the control group baseline characteristics by NAFLD status and Table 2 refers to characteristics based on presence or absence outcomes. A merged table would be a bit unwieldy and large. We only have 4 tables. If the editor prefers, we can move Table 2 to supplemental material.

Line 222- whats the definition of older age?

This referred to people older than 65 and we thought it might be obvious from the context of the sentence. We now clarify: “…there was a nearly 4-fold increased risk in those under age 65 and no association above age 65 (p for age interaction 0.03).” Line 239.

Discussion

Line 268- general ‘US’ population? The current wording is misleading

Good point. While REGARDS is a good representation of age-similar Black and White Americans, we haven’t published this evidence; we removed the word general.

Line 279- and what did this study show?

Thank you for asking. The study actually did not assess cognitive change. The sentence was edited: “only one prospective study was available, and this was a small clinic population of 331 people with NAFLD and alcoholic liver disease who were followed over 3 years for functional difficulty and did not have follow up cognitive testing or a control group, so did not address the question of the relationship of NAFLD to incident cognitive impairment.” Line 297.

Line 295- Given you adjusted for T2D, BMI and other risk factors and that did not explain your results, what does that suggest? This point is not complete

We clarified that the purpose of adjustment was to control for confounding. We also added another sentence following, “While residual confounding could be present, findings support the need to study reasons for this independent association.” Line 315

Line 310-311- this is a hypothesis? It is written as a fact and there is no reference?

Reference 47 was added.

319-320- your concluding sentence does not support the evidence you have presented in this paragraph

The sentence was removed.

325- what are ‘patients who were normal’ what is normal?

This was rephrased, “including patients with or without cognitive disorders,….” Line 345

Line 360- NAFLD – typo, and ‘strong associations’ is an overstatement as you need to state this is in a US population. I suggest you add the generalisability of your sample as a limitation further up and modify your conclusion to reflect this

-The sentence was rephrased” “In summary, this research demonstrated a tripling of the risk of incident cognitive impairment in middle-to-early-older age Black and White US residents with NAFLD.” Line 383.

-We added the requested limitation on line 372: ” Generalizability of the study sample was limited to Black and White persons in the US, so results require replication in other contexts.”

-We deleted a related sentence that was already present and was aimed at addressing this point, but didn’t use the term generalizability, “Finally, we cannot make conclusions about populations that were not studied, such as other race/ethnic groups or younger people.”

-The reviewer may also have missed that the conclusions already called for more studies including replication as a means to address generalizability and confidence in the findings.

Line 365- I think you can say liver specific outcomes rather than better classification which is unspecific

The reviewer is asking us to consider liver disease as an outcome. Our point is to consider liver disease as an exposure which is measured using better methods than we were able to apply. We tried to clarify the meaning of the sentence, “If these findings are further confirmed in studies with better classification of NAFLD than FLI….” Line 388

Line 365- NAFLD typo

Corrected

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, I was pleased to read your manuscript. The authors wanted to see if there was a link between NAFLD (as measured by the computed FLI) and cognitive impairment as measured by a verbal fluency test, a word list learning test, and word list memory during phonecall follow-up visits in the REGARDS cohort. The findings were consistent with NAFLD playing a role in the development of cognitive impairment in participants aged 45 to 65.

Thank you for these comments.

The study's value comes in its huge sample size, although the NAFLD and cognitive assessments are inaccurate because to REGARDS cohort restrictions. The hypothesis appears to be supported by statistics and findings. In fact, the FLI is a method to calculate the risk of having hepatic steatosis, but it does not discriminate whether the cause is due to alcohol consumption or not. Even if you have corrected for this covariate, you should state this limitation of the FLI in your discussions.

We recognize that the FLI does not distinguish NAFLD from alcoholic liver disease. To address this, we had excluded participants with heavy alcohol use from all analyses of NAFLD as an exposure (defined as >14 drinks/week for men or >7 drinks/week for women) to minimize any impact of alcohol-related liver disease. We added a sentence to the limitations section on line 366: “While we excluded people with heavy alcohol use from analyses of NAFLD as an exposure, it remains possible some participants classified with NAFLD had alcohol-related liver disease.” Line 370.

Likewise, you should state that the incidence of cognitive impairment is calculated on the basis of telephone tests and is not methodologically strong.

We had cited evidence that the telephone-administered tests have validity (references 23 and 24), but nevertheless added a statement about this on line 375: “telephone-based tests may lead to misclassification.” We believe the large cohort size here and prospective study design mitigates many of the limitations, including this.

Your discussion would probably benefit from a recently published article on the subject. In the observed cohort, the clinical diagnosis of dementia was used and these results could support yours, albeit in a different population doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2021.748888.

Thank you. We added this cross-sectional study to the discussion.

Figure 1 is actually a table, which is also very impractical for the average reader, in my opinion. I suggest you revise and edit.

We think the reviewer is mistaken. Figure 1 includes 3 panels that are graphs. The reviewer must be looking at the figure legend in the text which contains tabular items describing the data (the actual figure is found elsewhere in the PlosOne system).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 10-25-22.docx

Decision Letter 1

Nicholette D Palmer

19 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-08991R1Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and Cognitive Impairment: a Prospective Cohort StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cushman,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Relevant to the reviews included, the authors should comment on the strengths and limitations of the study design, addressed questions related to the approach and resolve minor presentation errors. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 02 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nicholette D. Palmer, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The study by Cushman, et al. investigated the relationship the associations of NAFLD with risk of cognitive impairment using data from a prospective cohort study. The strengths of the study are the relatively large sample size and prospective cohort design. However, I have several concerns regarding study design and presentation of the data.

Major comments:

1. My major concern is that “NAFLD” is defined based on FLI, a non-invasive index calculated from waist circumference, body mass index, levels of triglycerides and GGT, and not based on validated imaging measures or a clinical diagnosis. Thus the reported association likely reflects the effect of metabolic syndrome (obesity and dyslipidemia) on cognitive decline, rather than the effect of NAFLD per se. The fact that the authors found no similar association of liver function tests (ALT, AST) with cognitive impairment underscores the problem.

While FLI has been shown to have reasonable accuracy in discriminating between NAFLD and non-NAFLD in some settings, I think it reflects a metabolic risk profile rather than disease per se.

2. Definition of cognitive decline (p. 6, lines 122-123): the authors state incident cognitive impairment was defined as impaired scores on at least two of the three follow-up tests, which were performed “every two years during follow-up” (lines 118-119). While cases and controls had similar mean age at baseline (Table 2), was there any difference in the length of follow-up between the two groups or the age at diagnosis/last follow-up? This information needs to be provided in Table 2 or the Methods.

3. Statistical analyses: can the authors provide more information about the weights used in the analysis?

4. Tables: please add p-values for comparison of the groups (of at least standardized mean differences). While some journals do not require p-values when presenting baseline characteristics, it is very difficult to detect important differences without scrutinizing the entire table and doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations. For example, the authors state that the groups with and without NAFLD (Table 1) did not differ by race; however, the percentages of Black subjects in the two groups were 39 and 29, which is quite a large difference.

5. Tables – categorical characteristics should be presented as number (%), not only %.

Minor comments:

6. Page 4, lines 67-68: “imply considered, toxin accumulation might cause neuronal damage, as might lowered production of protective substances.” Fragment/incomplete sentence. Please revise.

7. Page 10, line 208: “group classified with NAFLD during follow up”. I am confused. I thought the authors stated that NAFLD was only assessed at baseline, not follow-up.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Apr 14;18(4):e0282633. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282633.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 1


28 Jan 2023

I uploaded a file for this.

Response to Reviews Cushman et. al., PONE-D-22-08991R1

From the editors

The authors should comment on the strengths and limitations of the study design, addressed questions related to the approach and resolve minor presentation errors

Response: Strengths were already reviewed on page 19, and limitations extensively discussed on pages 19-20 (and we have added to these based on a reviewer comment). We have responded to each reviewer concern and resolved minor presentation errors.

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response: References were checked. We did not cite retracted papers to our knowledge and did not add new references.

Reviewer Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: The study by Cushman, et al. investigated the relationship the associations of NAFLD with risk of cognitive impairment using data from a prospective cohort study. The strengths of the study are the relatively large sample size and prospective cohort design. However, I have several concerns regarding study design and presentation of the data.

Major comments:

1. My major concern is that “NAFLD” is defined based on FLI, a non-invasive index calculated from waist circumference, body mass index, levels of triglycerides and GGT, and not based on validated imaging measures or a clinical diagnosis. Thus the reported association likely reflects the effect of metabolic syndrome (obesity and dyslipidemia) on cognitive decline, rather than the effect of NAFLD per se. The fact that the authors found no similar association of liver function tests (ALT, AST) with cognitive impairment underscores the problem. While FLI has been shown to have reasonable accuracy in discriminating between NAFLD and non-NAFLD in some settings, I think it reflects a metabolic risk profile rather than disease per se.

Response: We acknowledge the great point of the new reviewer and also agree that FLI is reasonably validated. We had included related comments about classification of NAFLD in the previous submission. We agree that metabolic syndrome and NAFLD will frequently co-occur and it may be impossible to tease apart in terms of what the causal pathway might be, even if we had a gold standard measure of NAFLD; the issue would be the same. In addition, although the FLI has components of metabolic syndrome in its formula, GGT, a biomarker for selected liver disorders, is not a component of metabolic syndrome. We adjusted for metabolic factors in the multivariable analysis, but this doesn’t mean there isn’t residual confounding. We also want to mention that individual measures of liver function do not adequately reflect NAFLD, so lack of associations for individual aminotransferase levels does not mean that the findings on FLI are invalid. For example, serum aminotransferase levels, which are often elevated in liver injury, are not specific biomarkers for NAFLD, and their levels can be normal in up to 25% of individuals with NAFLD (PubMed ID 31937252). Finally, AST/ALT >2 was indeed related to risk of cognitive impairment.

We have added mention of the possibility of residual confounding by metabolic syndrome and the close connection of NAFLD with metabolic syndrome in the limitations section of the paper, page 19, line 370 in the tracked doc, “FLI presence may also relate closely to metabolic syndrome, and as such it would be difficult to separate the impacts of NAFLD and metabolic syndrome on risk of cognitive impairment. While we adjusted for factors involved in metabolic syndrome, we cannot say definitively that NAFLD is causal for the observed associations.”

2. Definition of cognitive decline (p. 6, lines 122-123): the authors state incident cognitive impairment was defined as impaired scores on at least two of the three follow-up tests, which were performed “every two years during follow-up” (lines 118-119). While cases and controls had similar mean age at baseline (Table 2), was there any difference in the length of follow-up between the two groups or the age at diagnosis/last follow-up? This information needs to be provided in Table 2 or the Methods.

Response: Test scores comprising the case definition for cognitive impairment were normed for age, which is why cases and controls have similar age. We selected the case and control groups based on data available in 2011 for follow up to their most recent cognitive test battery prior to this date (mean follow up 3.4 years). Any difference between cases and controls for follow up time would not seem relevant in this time span as all included participants had to have follow up cognitive assessment and these were done 2 years apart. We are unclear why age at last follow up would inform interpretation of the results. Based on the study design that age would be similar in the two groups.

3. Statistical analyses: can the authors provide more information about the weights used in the analysis?

Response: We added text on page 9 of the tracked doc at the bottom (line 186) to clarify this: “Baseline participant characteristics by NAFLD status and case control status were tabulated with weighting based on age group, sex, race to account for the stratified control sample selection so that the characteristics would reflect those in the larger REGARDS cohort.”

4. Tables: please add p-values for comparison of the groups (of at least standardized mean differences). While some journals do not require p-values when presenting baseline characteristics, it is very difficult to detect important differences without scrutinizing the entire table and doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations. For example, the authors state that the groups with and without NAFLD (Table 1) did not differ by race; however, the percentages of Black subjects in the two groups were 39 and 29, which is quite a large difference.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer pointing out the difference in race between those with and without NAFLD. It was an error in the text for us to say these prevalences were similar and we have edited this. We prefer to provide descriptive text only and avoid the use of p-values in the baseline characteristics table for several reasons. First, we are not testing hypotheses here but just describing the data. Second, statistical inference is not a valid method for determining the possibility of confounding in later analyses and may provide misleading information regarding this question. Third, statistical inference measures in a baseline characteristics table address the likelihood that a study exposure and a specific covariate are related in the underlying population; this question can be tangential to the study hypotheses and potentially distracting. Fourth, the use of statistical inference measures in a baseline characteristics table involves multiple comparisons and is likely to generate false positive associations.

5. Tables – categorical characteristics should be presented as number (%), not only %.

Response: We elected to show percents since the data is weighted to the full cohort so there would then be 2 numbers and 2 percentages in each cell (one for the nested sample and one for the weighted values reflecting the full cohort). We hope the reviewer can agree this is simpler and preferable.

Minor comments:

6. Page 4, lines 67-68: “imply considered, toxin accumulation might cause neuronal damage, as might lowered production of protective substances.” Fragment/incomplete sentence. Please revise.

Response: apologies for this! We revised to, “…. pathways of an association are unclear. Simply considered, toxin accumulation …..”

7. Page 10, line 208: “group classified with NAFLD during follow up”. I am confused. I thought the authors stated that NAFLD was only assessed at baseline, not follow-up.

Response: This is correct. The phrase, “during follow up” was removed.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviews 1-28-23.docx

Decision Letter 2

Nicholette D Palmer

20 Feb 2023

Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and Cognitive Impairment: a Prospective Cohort Study

PONE-D-22-08991R2

Dear Dr. Cushman,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Nicholette D. Palmer, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Nicholette D Palmer

24 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-08991R2

Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and Cognitive Impairment:a Prospective Cohort Study

Dear Dr. Cushman:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Nicholette D. Palmer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 3-17-22.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 10-25-22.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviews 1-28-23.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying the findings include potentially identifying participant information, and cannot be made publicly available due to ethical/legal restrictions. However, data including statistical code from this paper are available to researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Data can be obtained upon request through the University of Alabama at Birmingham at regardsadmin@uab.edu.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES