Skip to main content
. 2023 Sep 27;153(12):3418–3429. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2023.09.018

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

NAS and fibrosis score by subject group. Data are mean ± SD (total n = 49, No-NAFLD n = 8, NAFL n = 11, Borderline NASH n = 14, NASH n = 16). Subject liver histologies were used a priori to categorize individuals into 4 groups based on NAS. (A) Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA was performed for the NAS between the 3 groups that had scores greater than zero. Dunn’s multiple comparisons test was performed to reveal differences between groups. Lowercase letters that are not shared represent values that are significantly different from one another. (B) Although fibrosis scores were not used to categorize subjects into groups, Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA revealed a significant difference between groups, and Dunn’s multiple comparisons test revealed no significant difference in fibrosis between Borderline NASH and NASH. (C) Relationship between liver-TAG Fxn DNL and NAS. Polynomial regression analysis was performed, and a significant relationship was found between liver-TAG Fxn DNL and NAS (total n = 49, No-NAFLD n =8, NAFL n = 11, Borderline NASH n = 14, NASH n = 16, R = 0.538, P = 0.0004). Abbreviations: ANOVA, analysis of variance; DNL, de novo lipogenesis; Fxn, fractional; NAFL, nonalcoholic fatty liver; NAFLD, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; NAS, NAFLD activity score; NASH, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis; SD, standard deviation; TAG, triacylglycerol.