Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Mar 4;21(3):e0342697. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0342697

Global, regional, and national burden of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease among adults aged ≥ 45 years: A comprehensive analysis of epidemiological trends and projections to 2035

Qian Wang 1,, Jieru Guo 2,, Shuang Liu 3,, Xuebin Cao 4, Zhirong Guo 4, Long Rui 3, Liu Zheng 1, Chenyang Wang 4,*
Editor: Tiejun Zhang5
PMCID: PMC12959697  PMID: 41779728

Abstract

Background

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has emerged as the leading cause for chronic liver diseases around the globe, disproportionately affecting aging populations. This research focused on the global burden of NAFLD in adults aged 45 and older from 1990 to 2021, with projections extending to 2035.

Methods

Using data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study between 1990 and 2021, we assessed the incidence, prevalence, mortality and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) related to NAFLD in adults aged 45 and older in 204 countries and territories. To evaluate the underlying drivers including demographics and lifestyle, Bayesian age-period-cohort (BAPC) modeling was employed.

Results

In 2021, the worldwide prevalence of NAFLD has reached 48.35 million cases (with a 95% uncertainty interval of 44.23 to 52.36 million). Among individuals aged ≥ 45 years, age-standardized incidence rose by 18.3% (EAPC = 0.53) from 1990 to 2021, while prevalence increased by 24.5% (EAPC = 0.74). Mortality and DALYs also climbed, with Egypt, Mongolia, and Andean Latin America bearing the highest burdens. A bell-shaped Socio-Demographic Index (SDI) correlation emerged, peaking in medium-SDI regions (e.g., North Africa, Middle East). Projections indicate persistent female predominance, with ASIR expected to rise to 826.11 (women) vs. 665.72 (men) per 100,000 by 2035.

Conclusions

This analysis explored the global burden of NAFLD in people aged 45 years and older from 1990 to 2021, demonstrating significant epidemiological changes. Age-standardized incidence and prevalence rates rose by 18.3% and 24.5%, respectively, with the most pronounced burden observed in middle-to-high SDI regions attributable to aging populations. Although women exhibited higher incidence rates, mortality rates remained consistently elevated among men, underscoring unmet intervention needs. Projections to 2035 indicate increasing incidence (particularly in women) alongside moderate declines in mortality and DALYs, underlining the requirement for prevention strategies that are specific to age and gender.

Introduction

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has undergone a dramatic epidemiological transition, currently the most common chronic liver disease globally, affecting about 25–30% of adults around the world [1]. Its pathological spectrum ranges from simple hepatic steatosis to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [2]. Recent evidence indicates that NAFLD accounts for approximately 2.4% of global mortality from liver diseases, surpassing both viral hepatitis and alcoholic liver disease in many developed nations [3].

The pathophysiological intersection between NAFLD and aging presents unique clinical challenges due to age-related alterations in hepatic lipid metabolism [4], characterized by diminished β-oxidation capacity, mitochondrial dysfunction, and increased pro-inflammatory cytokine production with aging [5]. Clinical studies have demonstrated that fibrosis progression rates accelerate by 4–5% per decade after age 40, culminating in a 15-fold elevated risk of HCC by age 65 [6]. Furthermore, aging populations with NAFLD frequently exhibit metabolic multimorbidity, with over 70% of patients ≥ 45 years presenting concurrent type 2 diabetes, hypertension, or cardiovascular disease [7].

Despite these critical interactions, comprehensive assessments of NAFLD burden specifically among middle-aged and older adults remain scarce. Existing Global Burden of Disease (GBD) analyses largely consolidate NAFLD estimates across wide age brackets, potentially obscuring important epidemiological variations within high-risk subgroups [8]. This knowledge gap persists even as demographic aging reshapes global health priorities-the population aged ≥ 60 years is projected to double by 2050 and is expected to constitute the majority requiring liver-related healthcare [9].

Given the accelerated disease progression observed in middle-aged and older adults, combined with the growing global prevalence of metabolic risk factors, there is an urgent need for comprehensive age-stratified analyses of NAFLD burden. While previous Global Burden of Disease studies have provided valuable insights into overall NAFLD epidemiology, they have not specifically examined the unique patterns and drivers affecting adults ≥45 years-a population experiencing the most rapid demographic growth globally. This knowledge gap limits our ability to develop targeted prevention strategies and allocate healthcare resources effectively for this high-risk demographic. Therefore, this study aims to provide the first comprehensive assessment of NAFLD burden specifically among adults aged ≥45 years, utilizing the most recent Global Burden of Disease 2021 data to inform evidence-based policy development.

Methods

Data sources

We made use of information from the Global Burden of Diseases and Injuries Study (GBD, URL: https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-results/) conducted in 2021, which synthesizes epidemiological information from 204 nations and territories [10]. The data obtained from the GBD database did not require informed patient consent and was publicly available.

GBD 2021 harmonized NAFLD case definitions by integrating country-specific diagnostic modalities. For 87 countries with biopsy/imaging studies, cases required histologic steatosis (≥5% hepatocytes) or imaging-confirmed hepatic fat fraction >5% by MRI-PDFF or ultrasound. In remaining nations, FLI ≥ 60 was applied as a surrogate, validated against local imaging cohorts where available (e.g., FLI sensitivity/specificity = 0.73/0.86 in European and 0.68/0.81 in Asian populations) [11]. GBD’s DisMod-MR 2.1 tool adjusted for cross-country diagnostic heterogeneity by incorporating covariates such as healthcare access and obesity prevalence [12]. Mortality estimates incorporated vital registration systems, verbal autopsy data, and cancer registry records coded to ICD-10 codes K75.8 and K76.0.

Inclusion criteria required: (1) age ≥ 45 years at diagnosis; (2) NAFLD defined per FLI ≥ 60 or imaging-confirmed hepatic steatosis (≥5% hepatocyte involvement); and (3) residency in a GBD-listed country/territory. Exclusion criteria, applied through GBD’s hierarchical cause-of-death modeling, included: (1) secondary hepatic steatosis due to alcohol consumption > 20g/day (men) or>10g/day (women); (2) viral hepatitis B or C coinfection; (3) drug-induced steatosis (corticosteroids, methotrexate, amiodarone); (4) hereditary metabolic disorders (Wilson disease, alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency); and (5) other chronic liver diseases taking precedence in GBD’s mutually exclusive disease hierarchy.

This study focuses on adults aged ≥45 years based on clinical and public health considerations. Beginning in mid-life, metabolic alterations—such as increased insulin resistance, hormonal changes, visceral adiposity, and sarcopenia—promote hepatic lipid accumulation and elevate NAFLD risk. After age 45, fibrosis progression accelerates, with each decade increasing fibrosis risk by 4–5%, and cirrhosis and HCC incidence rise substantially. This group also exhibits high multimorbidity; over 70% of NAFLD patients have concurrent metabolic conditions, compounding mortality risk. Globally, aging populations make this age group a major driver of NAFLD-related healthcare burden [13]. Prior studies often overlook age-specific patterns, limiting targeted interventions. Focusing on this cohort allows clearer insight into demographic and epidemiologic drivers and supports cost-effective early detection and long-term policy planning.

Statistical analysis

Age-standardized rates were calculated using the global standard population set by the World Health Organization [14]. Uncertainty intervals (UIs) were estimated by accounting for sampling error, diagnostic variability, and model uncertainty through 1000 draws from the Bayesian posterior distribution [13].Projection modeling was generated using Bayesian age-period-cohort (BAPC) models, which incorporated demographic changes from UN World Population Prospects 2022, Healthcare access metrics (Universal Health Coverage index) [15]. The Bayesian Age-Period-Cohort (BAPC) model produces more reliable predictions of global disease burden trends by leveraging the similarity of age, period, and cohort effects across adjacent time intervals. It applies a second-order random walk prior to smooth these three types of effects and derives posterior rate estimates through Bayesian inference. The model uses integrated nested Laplace approximation (INLA) to estimate marginal posterior distributions, which mitigates mixing and convergence issues often associated with traditional Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling in Bayesian analysis [16]. To ensure smoothness, the BAPC model assigns independent mean-zero normal distributions as priors to the second-order differences of all effects, with the prior distribution for the age effect specified as follows:

𝐟(α|𝐤α)𝐤α𝐭22𝐞𝐱𝐩{𝐤α2\nolimits𝐢=31[(α𝐢α𝐢1)(α𝐢𝐢α𝐢2)]2}

Second-order random walk (RW2) priors were assigned to age, period, and cohort effects with precision hyperparameters following Gamma(1, 0.00005) distributions. Sum-to-zero constraints were implemented to resolve identifiability issues inherent in age-period-cohort models. Bayesian inference utilized Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation (INLA) for computational efficiency. Model selection employed the Deviance Information Criterion (DIC), with final models achieving DIC values <15,000 across all regions. Convergence was assessed using effective sample size (ESS > 1000) and Gelman-Rubin potential scale reduction factors (<1.1). Model validation involved comparing predicted versus observed rates from 1990–2021, achieving mean absolute percentage errors <5% across 95% of country-years.

Geographic differences were analyzed based on Socio-demographic Index (SDI) groups [17], regions defined by the WHO (like WPRO, SEARO, EURO, etc.), and estimates at the country level. Measures of health inequality, such as the Slope Index of Inequality (SII) and Concentration Index (CI), were calculated. All analyses and result visualization were conducted using the software R (version 4.3.3).[18].

Results

Global burden of NAFLD in 2021

According to the 2021 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study, the global number of cases of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) was estimated at 48.35 million (95% UI: 44.23 to 52.36 million). In the same year, NAFLD was associated with 138,328 deaths (95% UI: 108,288–173,905) across all age groups, accounting for 0.204% of the total burden from all 369 diseases and injuries analyzed in the GBD study. This reflects a 58.14% increase in NAFLD-related deaths since 1990. Within the central focus of this study—adults aged ≥45 years—the age-standardized prevalence rate (ASPR) reached 30,016.22 per 100,000 population (95% UI: 23,519.09 to 37,290.44) in 2021, underscoring the disproportionately high burden of NAFLD in this age group.

This population exhibited a considerable burden of mortality and disability, with an age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR) of 5.04 per 100,000 (95% UI: 3.44–7.28) and an age-standardized disability-adjusted life year (DALY) rate of 124.7 per 100,000 (95% UI: 83.88–183.07). Furthermore, a pronounced sex-based disparity was observed, with women in this age group consistently exhibiting a higher incidence rate.

Epidemiological Trends in NAFLD Among Adults Aged ≥ 45 Years

During the period from 1990 to 2021, the ASIR for NAFLD in individuals aged 45 years and older rose by 18.3%, escalating from 557.89 instances for every 100,000 individuals (with a 95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 358.23–804.92) to 660.42 instances (95% UI: 424.09–952.42), corresponding to an estimated annual percentage change (EAPC) value of 0.53. In a similar way, the age-standardized prevalence rate (ASPR) of this demographic demonstrated a marked increase of 24.5%, climbing from 24,115.89 per 100,000 (95% UI: 18,721.86−30,341.58) to 30,016.22 (95% UI: 23,519.09−37,290.44) over the same period, with an EAPC of 0.74. The rising prevalence of NAFLD in older persons is highlighted by these trends, reflecting broader shifts in metabolic risk factors and aging populations globally (Table 1).

Table 1. ASIR and ASPR of NAFLD in 1990 and 2021 for all locations, with EAPC from 1990 and 2021.

location Age-standardized incidence per 100 000 population (95% UI) 1990–2021 EAPC of ASIR (95%CI) Age-standardized Prevalence per 100 000 population (95% UI) 1990–2021 EAPC of ASPR (95%CI)
1990 2021 1990 2021
Global 557.89(358.23-804.92) 660.42(424.09-952.42) 0.53* (0.51-0.56) 24115.89(18721.86-30341.58) 30016.22(23519.09-37290.44) 0.72* (0.65-0.79)
SDI
Low SDI 614.94(399.61-885.04) 670.78(438.19-962.48) 0.28* (0.26-0.31) 25083.39(19337.63-31711.47) 27857.03(21531.82-35053.88) 0.32* (0.28-0.37)
Low-middle SDI 658.34(425.52-946.64) 733.57(476.7-1058.82) 0.37 *(0.35-0.39) 27523.14(21269.35-34683.07) 31813.65(24855.69-39702.62) 0.47* (0.43-0.52)
Middle SDI 646.07(418.06-933.44) 731.04(474.01-1056.8) 0.36 *(0.34-0.39) 28453.11(22125.29-35735.24) 33817.13(26499.76-41925.1) 0.57 *(0.49-0.65)
High-middle SDI 544.35(352.62-787.52) 649.97(420.83-944.13) 0.52* (0.49-0.56) 24670.77(19189.71-31002.07) 31166.86(24473.04-38684.42) 0.75 *(0.65-0.85)
High SDI 390.65(252.61-565.33) 481.07(312-695.65) 0.70* (0.67-0.72) 16648.09(12883.77-21026.91) 21902.07(17173.36-27286.75) 0.96 *(0.91-1.01)
Region
High-income North America 412.65(265.29-596.22) 498.74(320.3-717.62) 0.67* (0.64-0.70) 16162.98(12291.96-20664.1) 20191.7(15649.99-25463.66) 0.87* (0.81-0.93)
Australasia 329.87(210.54-480.19) 385.92(244.91-567.21) 0.50* (0.47-0.54) 14506.35(11137.46-18471.09) 18740.51(14555.32-23490.73) 0.85* (0.81-0.89)
High-income Asia Pacific 352.55(226.93-513.34) 401.12(257.83-585.39) 0.44*(0.37-0.52) 14899.03(11474.84-18880.22) 17306.01(13476.47-21847.44) 0.61* (0.52-0.69)
Western Europe 370.39(238.11-536.69) 432.06(279.24-624.46) 0.51* (0.49-0.54) 16027.14(12456.72-20229.86) 21426.35(16825.69-26574.8) 0.99* (0.94-1.04)
Southern Latin America 395.43(250.85-574.71) 462.71(293.53-673.29) 0.51 *(0.48-0.55) 15994.49(12238.79-20417) 20773.94(15979.18-26395.72) 0.88* (0.84-0.92)
Eastern Europe 490.24(313.6-711.28) 515.29(328.69-750.57) 0.17* (0.16-0.19) 23391.14(18219.48-29373.79) 25751.77(20135.14-32042.04) 0.30* (0.29-0.32)
Central Europe 458.71(292.5-667.75) 475.98(304-693.56) 0.12* (0.11-0.13) 23214.34(18122.95-29045.57) 25775.13(20217.1-31883.29) 0.37* (0.35-0.39)
Central Asia 603.51(387.12-875.45) 643.96(412.54-937.94) 0.22* (0.20-0.24) 28844.63(22457.86-36172.25) 32606.11(25593.43-40548.31) 0.42* (0.38-0.46)
Central Latin America 656.99(419.77-946.51) 693.16(443.67-1005.65) 0.18* (0.17-0.19) 31139.49(24316.35-38708.19) 34903.56(27464.89-43173.27) 0.40 *(0.39-0.41)
Andean Latin America 575.17(365.85-841.55) 611.03(390.97-888.03) 0.21* (0.19-0.22) 27091.73(20999.97-34169.83) 31268.65(24587.87-38757.71) 0.51* (0.50-0.53)
Caribbean 622.77(400.06-901.22) 657.69(421.83-953.5) 0.19* (0.17-0.20) 29709.33(23166.18-36958.33) 33260.86(26173.42-41219.78) 0.40* (0.39-0.42)
Tropical Latin America 673(430.85-975.9) 720.44(458.95-1050.57) 0.24* (0.23-0.26) 31216.17(24318.59-39330.53) 34594.38(27070.83-42880.95) 0.38* (0.37-0.39)
East Asia 613.52(393.97-886.05) 713.25(458.49-1029.62) 0.38 *(0.31-0.44) 26423.6(20359.54-33390.87) 32367.15(25204.17-40526.4) 0.64* (0.42-0.86)
Southeast Asia 664.68(428.2-960.46) 717.49(462.38-1039.37) 0.26* (0.25-0.28) 29040.87(22535.23-36601.94) 32751.37(25594.2-40760.14) 0.40* (0.39-0.41)
Oceania 649.74(422.48-939.12) 684(444.62-979.39) 0.19* (0.16-0.21) 29298.18(22674.06-37001.06) 32862.49(25581.1-41072.85) 0.39 *(0.36-0.42)
North Africa and Middle East 862.43(549.21-1259.37) 978(621.16-1421.17) 0.46* (0.44-0.48) 42928.76(33837.64-52848.3) 54017.08(43474.71-64718.42) 0.80* (0.76-0.85)
South Asia 638.81(410.37-916.08) 720.59(462.95-1034.68) 0.39* (0.36-0.43) 25188.81(19306.15-32028.34) 28912.4(22274.07-36524.24) 0.44* (0.36-0.52)
Southern Sub-Saharan Africa 643.88(414.74-932.24) 671.85(434.11-974.11) 0.14 *(0.13-0.16) 28114.12(21712.66-35311.65) 32055.8(25045.22-39858.7) 0.41* (0.39-0.44)
Western Sub-Saharan Africa 615.79(395.3-887.7) 668.62(430.11-970.06) 0.27 *(0.25-0.29) 26256.96(20314.83-33178.03) 29443.43(22815.54-37051.38) 0.35* (0.33-0.37)
Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa 570.92(367.46-821.54) 613.4(395.7-885.93) 0.24* (0.23-0.25) 23581.24(18208.79-29822.45) 26290.21(20343.83-33146.81) 0.34* (0.32-0.36)
Central Sub-Saharan Africa 528.16(339.63-763.11) 556.34(358.55-799.31) 0.16* (0.14-0.19) 21795.1(16628.82-27750.95) 23663.89(18182.73-30060.89) 0.28* (0.25-0.32)

ASIR Age-standardized incidence rate, ASPR Age-standardized prevalence rate, EAPC Estimated annual percentage change, CI Confidence interval, SDI Socio-demographic index, UI Uncer-tainty interval. * Statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Between 1990 and 2021, both the mortality and DALYs associated with NAFLD increased. The age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR) and age-standardized DALYs rate (ASDR) also experienced growth, with ASMR rising from 4.81 per 100,000 population (95% UI: 3.12–7.29) in 1990 to 5.04 per 100,000 population (95% UI: 3.44–7.28) in 2021 (EAPC = 0.17). In 2021, the ASDR increased to 124.7 per 100,000 people (95% UI: 83.88–183.07) from 120.05 per 100,000 people in 1990 (95% UI: 77. 24–183. 21) (EAPC=0.12) (Table 2).

Table 2. ASMR and ASDR of NAFLD in 1990 and 2021 for all locations, with EAPC from 1990 and 2021.

location Age-standardized Mortality per 100 000 population (95% UI) 1990–2021 EAPC of Mortality (95%CI) Age-standardized DALYs per 100 000 population (95% UI) 1990–2021 EAPC of DALYs (95%CI)
1990 2021 1990 2021
Global 4.81(3.12-7.29) 5.04(3.44-7.28) 0.17* (0.11-0.22) 120.05(77.24-183.21) 124.7(83.88-183.07) 0.12* (0.06-0.19)
SDI
Low SDI 5.98(3.67-9.56) 5.44(3.62-8.13) −0.37* (−0.42--0.33) 144.02(89.47-228.33) 127.81(84.34-193.18) −0.48* (−0.53--0.44)
Low-middle SDI 5.26(3.12-8.64) 5.89(3.79-8.85) 0.41* (0.38-0.43) 124.23(74.28-202.8) 142.62(91.33-216.2) 0.50* (0.46-0.53)
Middle SDI 5.01(3.27-7.58) 5.5(3.78-7.85) 0.38* (0.34-0.41) 123.15(79.94-186.54) 133.5(90.58-193.06) 0.28* (0.24-0.31)
High-middle SDI 4.66(3.03-6.93) 4.25(2.86-6.16) −0.30* (−0.45--0.16) 115.52(74.35-174.01) 107.24(70.89-158.62) −0.26* (−0.46--0.07)
High SDI 4.53(2.92-6.85) 4.71(3.19-6.77) 0.16* (0.07-0.26) 116.99(74.28-179.68) 119.44(79.55-174.4) 0.11 (−0.01-0.22)
Region
High-income North America 3.36(2.14-5.14) 4.99(3.37-7.26) 1.55* (1.40-1.70) 88.6(55.12-138.99) 129.37(85.58-192.41) 1.56* (1.40-1.71)
Australasia 2.49(1.57-3.82) 4.05(2.81-5.67) 1.80* (1.65-1.96) 66.33(41.17-103.22) 103.27(70.84-144.98) 1.75* (1.58-1.92)
High-income Asia Pacific 5.08(3.57-7.14) 2.75(1.86-3.88) −2.20* (−2.37--2.03) 122.66(86.24-173.53) 59.8(40.52-85.28) −2.58* (−2.75--2.41)
Western Europe 6.88(4.19-10.57) 5.59(3.67-8.02) −0.69* (−0.85--0.53) 176.99(105.59-276.85) 141.24(91.32-205.82) −0.74* (−0.93--0.55)
Southern Latin America 5.68(3.15-9.5) 5.53(3.32-8.74) 0.32* (0.20-0.45) 149.95(82.23-254.44) 140.12(82.49-225.6) 0.21* (0.08-0.35)
Eastern Europe 2.94(1.82-4.68) 7.56(4.52-12.11) 3.11 *(2.55-3.67) 79.2(48.18-128.14) 229.15(133.35-374.36) 3.36* (2.69-4.04)
Central Europe 4.34(2.66-6.84) 5.44(3.33-8.57) 0.45 *(0.30-0.59) 114.2(68.2-183.86) 147.54(88.2-237.1) 0.49* (0.31-0.66)
Central Asia 6.85(4.26-10.68) 10.39(6.27-16.42) 1.54* (1.32-1.77) 171.85(105.92-269.71) 258.51(153.74-416.4) 1.42* (1.20-1.64)
Central Latin America 13.2(7.82-20.7) 15.84(9.94-23.26) 0.58* (0.50-0.66) 345.15(200.68-552.59) 416.33(257.22-622.6) 0.55* (0.46-0.65)
Andean Latin America 14.9(8.65-23.9) 18.86(11.02-29.02) 0.77* (0.68-0.85) 372.44(212.12-604.47) 444.89(255.72-694.22) 0.51* (0.41-0.60)
Caribbean 8.79(5.14-14.08) 9.42(5.6-14.76) 0.17 (−0.07-0.42) 218.69(124.98-356.76) 242.59(141.49-388.59) 0.30 *(0.05-0.55)
Tropical Latin America 3.53(2.13-5.62) 4.39(2.77-6.59) 0.99* (0.87-1.10) 94.19(55.67-152.94) 116.45(72.05-178.66) 0.92* (0.80-1.03)
East Asia 3.26(2.25-4.67) 2.59(1.82-3.58) −0.53* (−0.65--0.41) 81.69(56.32-117.15) 60.6(42.39-84.14) −0.82* (−0.94--0.70)
Southeast Asia 5.07(3.08-8.27) 5.78(3.76-8.58) 0.44* (0.37-0.51) 123.5(75.99-198.66) 134.63(87.28-201.95) 0.27* (0.21-0.33)
Oceania 2.77(1.51-5.12) 2.51(1.49-4.08) −0.48 *(−0.60--0.37) 71.77(38.92-132.23) 64.14(37.53-105.7) −0.53* (−0.65--0.40)
North Africa and Middle East 8.25(4.62-14.06) 8.6(5.38-13.38) 0.18* (0.11-0.24) 169.58(96.83-284.57) 188.35(117.79-293.44) 0.42* (0.39-0.45)
South Asia 3.41(2.03-5.72) 4(2.6-6.09) 0.47* (0.42-0.53) 87.56(52.31-145.57) 97.51(62.91-149.24) 0.28* (0.24-0.33)
Southern Sub-Saharan Africa 5.42(3.21-8.94) 8.57(5.98-12.22) 1.27* (0.83-1.72) 132.85(79.03-218.82) 209.37(144.28-304.86) 1.30* (0.85-1.75)
Western Sub-Saharan Africa 8.74(5.07-14.4) 8.64(5.75-12.78) −0.09* (−0.13--0.05) 202.17(118.27-332.45) 195.48(128.5-293.22) −0.16* (−0.20--0.12)
Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa 7.26(4.58-11.28) 7.56(4.88-11.61) −0.01 (−0.06-0.05) 172.84(109.48-268.35) 175.18(112.88-270.73) −0.11* (−0.18--0.05)
Central Sub-Saharan Africa 5.53(2.9-10.06) 5.01(2.64-9.16) −0.45* (−0.53--0.37) 142.02(75.72-255.52) 126.64(67.56-230.86) −0.50* (−0.58--0.41)

EAPC Estimated annual percentage change, DALYs Disability-adjusted life years, CI Confidence interval, SDI Socio-demographic index, UI Uncer-tainty interval. * Statistically significant (P < 0.05).

At the national level in 2021, among people older than 45, With an ASIR of 1063.2 per 100,000 individuals, Afghanistan had the highest rate of NAFLD.(95% UI: 693.4–1532.7), for which Iran (Islamic Republic of) (1043 per 100,000 population; 95% UI: 664.7–1521.3) and Libya (1034.2 per 100,000 population; 95% UI: 652.7–1514.8) followed. With an ASIR of 337.7 per 100,000 individuals (95% UI: 218.1–487.2), Denmark had the lowest rate of NAFLD, followed by Japan (372.3 per 100,000 population; 95% UI: 239.6–542.8) and Switzerland (372.4 per 100,000 population; 95% UI: 238.4–541.2). (Fig 1A). Kuwait, Egypt, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Qatar and Saudi Arabia presented the highest ASPR of NAFLD (61,255.9 out of every 100,000 people, with a 95% uncertainty interval of 50,233.5 to 71,986.3; 59,912.1 out of every 100,000 people, with a 95% uncertainty interval of 49,063.1 to 70,454; 59,428 out of every 100,000 people, 95% UI: 48217.4–70660.7; 59300.4 per 100,000 population, 95% UI: 48761.8–69829.5 and 57345.1 per 100,000 population, 95% UI: 46337.1–68462.6). Japan, Denmark and Finland demonstrated the lowest ASPR of NAFLD (16136.2 per 100,000 population, 95% UI: 12529.7–20391.7; 16347 per 100,000 population, 95% UI: 12681.7–20531.5; 16757 per 100,000 population, 95% UI: 12847.3–21450.1) (Fig 1B). In 2021, The highest ASMR of NAFLD was recorded in Egypt and Mongolia, with rates of 30.4 and 27.3 per 100,000 population, respectively, and 95% UI ranges of 17.8–49 and 16.8–43. Papua New Guinea and Sri Lanka presented the lowest ASMR of NAFLD (1.4 per 100,000 population, 95% UI: 0.6–2.8, 1.7 per 100,000 population, 95% UI: 0.9–3.1)(Fig 1C). Egypt and Mexico recorded the highest ASDR for NAFLD (643.2 per 100,000 population, 95% UI: 378.9–1030.6, 605.3 per 100,000 population, 95% UI: 376–912.9). Singapore and Papua New Guinea presented the lowest ASDR for NAFLD (34.8 per 100,000 population, 95% UI: 21.9–53.8, 35.4 per 100,000 population, 95% UI:16.6–73.5).(Fig 1D).

Fig 1. Global Burden of NAFLD in Adults Aged ≥45 Years (2021) A: Age-standardized incidence rates (per 100,000 population).

Fig 1

Highest rates in Afghanistan, Iran, and Libya; lowest in Denmark, Japan, and Switzerland. B: Age-standardized prevalence rates (per 100,000 population). Highest in Kuwait, Egypt, Iran, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia; lowest in Japan, Denmark, and Finland. C: Age-standardized mortality rates (per 100,000 population). Highest in Egypt and Mongolia; lowest in Papua New Guinea and Sri Lanka. D: Age-standardized DALY rates (per 100,000 population). Highest in Egypt and Mexico; lowest in Singapore and Papua New Guinea. Abbreviations: NAFLD, Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; DALY, Disability-Adjusted Life Year. Uncertainty intervals (95% UI) denote data variability. Basemap source: Natural Earth (public domain, https://www.naturalearthdata.com/). Maps were generated using the rnaturalearth package in R.

Fig 2 displays the actual global and regional ASIR, ASPR, ASMR, and ASDR in comparison to the anticipated levels for each area based on the SDI, presented as yearly data from 1990 to 2021.

Fig 2. Trends in Age-Standardized NAFLD Rates by SDI Quintiles and GBD Regions (1990–2021) A: Incidence rates showing a bell-shaped SDI correlation, peaking in medium-SDI regions (e.g., North Africa/Middle East).

Fig 2

B: Prevalence rates mirroring incidence trends, with highest burdens in medium-SDI regions. C: Mortality rates exhibiting nonlinear SDI associations, highest in Andean and Central Latin America. D: DALY rates highlighting severe burdens in Andean Latin America and Central Latin America. Abbreviations: SDI, Socio-demographic Index; GBD, Global Burden of Disease; ASIR, Age-Standardized Incidence Rate; ASPR, Age-Standardized Prevalence Rate; ASMR, Age-Standardized Mortality Rate; ASDR, Age-Standardized DALY Rate.

Between 1990 and 2021, age-standardized incidence rates (ASIR) and prevalence rates (ASPR) of NAFLD across 21 GBD regions demonstrated a consistent upward trajectory. Notably, both metrics exhibited a bell-shaped correlation with the SDI, peaking in regions with intermediate SDI levels (Figs 2A and 2B). Over the study period, areas classified as medium SDI consistently reported the highest ASIR and ASPR values, while high- and low-SDI regions displayed comparatively lower rates. This phenomenon was most prominent in North Africa and the Middle East, where NAFLD incidence and prevalence remained persistently elevated, surpassing all other regions globally.

The ASMR and ASDR of NAFLD worldwide and in 21 regions showed a significant nonlinear association with SDI (Figs 2C and 2D). In the low SDI region, ASMR and ASDR rose slowly. Notably, within intermediate SDI territories, Andean Latin America recorded the most severe burden, with age-standardized DALY rates (ASDR) reaching 372.44 per 100,000 (95% UI: 212.12–604.47) in 1990, escalating to 444.89 per 100,000 (95% UI: 255.72–694.22) by 2021. Central Latin America followed closely, demonstrating ASDR values of 345.15 per 100,000 (95% UI: 200.68–552.59) in 1990 and 416.33 per 100,000 (95% UI: 257.22–622.60) in 2021. These figures consistently surpassed projected thresholds derived from SDI-based epidemiological models throughout the three-decade period. Among women, NAFLD in the Andean Latin America region has consistently exhibited a relatively high ASMR with a yearly increasing trend (Fig 3B). Meanwhile, women in Andean Latin America have the highest rates of ASMR and ASDR in NAFLD (Figs 4A and 4B). Between 1990 and 1998, the ASMR of NAFLD of men in the Southern Sub-Saharan African region seen a significant increase, followed by a trend toward stabilization followed by a tendency toward stabilization (Fig 3C). In high-SDI regions, ASDR and mortality rates ASMR generally remained low, yet distinct patterns emerged across nations. A pronounced decline in ASDR was observed in affluent Asia-Pacific nations and Western Europe, contrasting with rising trends in other areas (Fig 3A). Notably, The most rapid rise occurred in Eastern Europe, where the EAPC in ASDR was 3.36 (95% CI: 2.69–4.04) between 1990 and 2021, surpassing trends in all other regions. This divergence highlights the heterogeneous impact of socioeconomic development on NAFLD-related mortality, even within comparable development tiers.

Fig 3. Sex-Stratified Trends in Age-Standardized DALY Rates (1990–2021) A: Both sexes.

Fig 3

Eastern Europe showed the steepest increase (EAPC = 3.36). B: Females. Andean Latin America had the highest rates with rising trajectories. C: Males. Southern Sub-Saharan Africa experienced sharp increases before stabilizing post-1998. Abbreviations: EAPC, Estimated Annual Percentage Change. Shaded areas represent 95% uncertainty intervals.

Fig 4. Sex-Specific Mortality and DALY Rates by Region (2021) A: Age-standardized mortality rates (ASMR).

Fig 4

Andean Latin American women bore the highest burden. B: Age-standardized DALY rates (ASDR). Andean Latin America and North Africa/Middle East had the highest rates, with women disproportionately affected. Regional order: Ranked from highest to lowest burden. GBD regions are grouped by SDI levels.

Cross-national NAFLD health inequality

In 1990 and 2021, the SII (for every 100,000 individuals) for DALYs were −0.39 and −0.33 showing an inverse relationship between age-adjusted DALY rates and the SDI index (see Fig 5). The trends we see show a steady decrease in the differences of age-adjusted NAFLD rates between wealthy and poorer countries from 1990 to 2021. During this period, concentration index for DALYs and mortality exhibited progressive reductions, with values for DALYs rising from −0.13 (1990) to −0.10 (2021), and mortality indices shifting from −0.15 (1990) to −0.12 (2021) (Figs 6C and 6D). Conversely, prevalence and incidence displayed opposing patterns, as their concentration index transitioned from neutral or positive values to negative territory (prevalence: 0 [1990] to −0.06 [2021]; incidence: 0.02 [1990] to −0.04 [2021]). These divergent trajectories suggest that while mortality-related inequalities diminished, disparities in disease onset and persistence became more pronounced over time (Figs 6A and 6B).

Fig 5. Health Inequality in DALY Rates by SDI (1990 vs. 2021).

Fig 5

Slope Index of Inequality (SII) for age-standardized DALY rates. Negative SII values (−0.39 in 1990; −0.33 in 2021) indicate higher burdens in low-SDI regions. The narrowing gap reflects reduced inequality between high- and low-income nations. Abbreviations: SII, Absolute difference in DALY rates between extreme SDI percentiles.

Fig 6. Concentration Indices (CI) for NAFLD Burden Metrics (1990 vs. 2021).

Fig 6

A: Incidence CI shifted from 0.02 (1990) to −0.04 (2021), indicating growing disparities in disease onset. B: Prevalence CI changed from 0 (1990) to −0.06 (2021), reflecting widening inequalities in disease persistence. C: Mortality CI improved from −0.15 (1990) to −0.12 (2021), signaling reduced mortality inequality. D: DALY CI rose from −0.13 (1990) to −0.10 (2021), showing modest reductions in disability inequality. Abbreviations: Negative CI, Concentration of burden in low-SDI populations.

Bayesian age-period-cohort (BAPC) model prediction

The natural history from early fat accumulation in the liver to severe scarring, liver cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) often spans decades [2]. Individuals currently aged ≥ 45 years represent a critical cohort entering the peak risk period for disease progression and complications over the next 10–15 years [6]. Projections to 2035 allow us to assess the anticipated burden within this high-risk timeframe, capturing the trajectory of prevalent cases diagnosed today as they age and the emergence of incident cases within this vulnerable demographic. This timeframe aligns with strategic public health planning cycles and is crucial for evaluating the long-term impact of current interventions and demographic shifts.

Using Bayesian ageperiod cohort models, we forecast ASIR, ASMR, and ASDR in people over 45 from 2021 to 2035, with different trends seen between genders, in order to understand the trends of NAFLD in this age group after 2021.

From 1990 to 2021, the ASIR among women has consistently been higher than that among men. The rate of ASIR for women is always greater than that for men during the forecasted time, showing that women face a heavier load of NAFLD. By 2035, the ASIR of NAFLD is expected to increase to 826.11 per 100,000 women and 665.72 per 100,000 men. For women, the projected incidence rates demonstrate a steady upward trend over time, with a more substantial increase anticipated as the timeline advances toward 2035.(Figs 7A and 7B).

Fig 7. BAPC Projections of NAFLD Burden to 2035.

Fig 7

A–B: Incidence rates projected to rise, with women consistently higher (826.11 vs. 665.72 per 100,000 by 2035). C–D: Mortality rates declining more sharply in women (11.97% reduction) than men (9.60%). E–F: DALY rates decreasing, with steeper declines in women (10.88% vs. 9.98% in men). Abbreviations: BAPC, Bayesian age-period-cohort modeling. Dashed lines represent Projections; shaded areas represent 95% uncertainty intervals.

Epidemiological surveillance data from 1990 through 2021 demonstrate sustained annual growth in ASMR, with longitudinal analyses revealing persistent gender-specific differentials-male mortality consistently surpassing female rates throughout this observation window. Modeling projections suggest a paradigm shift during the 2021–2035 period, with both genders exhibiting transition to declining trajectories. Quantitative estimates predict that female ASMR will decline to 4.34 cases per 100,000 population by 2035 (representing an 11.97% reduction relative to 2021 baseline values), while male rates decrease to 4.80 per 100,000 (9.60% decline over the same timeframe). Notably, comparative analysis reveals a more substantial mortality rate reduction in female populations, with their projected percentage decrease exceeding male counterparts by 2.37 percentage points (Figs 7C and 7D).

From 1990 to 2021, ASDR tended to be stable, but the ASDR for men was consistently greater than that for women. Predictions indicate that from 2021 to 2035, the ASDR of both men and women will show a downward trend. By 2035, the ASDR of female NAFLD will drop to 105.32 per 100,000 population, a decrease of 10.88% compared with 118.18 in 2021. The ASDR of male NAFLD dropped to 120.54 per 100,000 population, a decrease of 9.98% compared with 133.91 in 2021. The decline of ASDR in women is more obvious (Figs 7E and 7F).

Decomposition analysis of incidence

According to the decomposition analysis, globally, the impacts of population growth, disease pattern transformation and population aging on the occurrence of NAFLD are 58.68%, 33.76% and 7.56% respectively. Among adults aged 45 years and above, the expansion of the population size has emerged as the predominant driver behind the rising prevalence of NAFLD, accounting for 81.97% of the observed increase in cases. Concurrently, changes in disease incidence patterns contributed to 18.97% of this growth. Interestingly, the global aging phenomenon demonstrated a moderating effect, with a negative contribution of −0.63% to the overall rise in NAFLD incidence. (Figs 8A and 8B)

Fig 8. Decomposition Analysis of NAFLD Incidence Drivers (1990–2021).

Fig 8

A: Global contributions to incidence change.population growth (58.68%) and Epidemiological shifts (33.76%) were primary drivers; aging had minimal impact (7.56%). B: Contributions to the rise in NAFLD prevalence among adults aged ≥45 years: Population growth, Epidemiological shifts and aging accounted for 81.97%, 18.97% and −0.63% respectively.

Discussion

Our analysis reveals that NAFLD burden among adults aged ≥ 45 years has increased substantially (63% growth) compared to general population trends (38%), reflecting the synergistic impact of demographic aging and the expanding metabolic syndrome pandemic [19]. Age-related physiological alterations—including diminished hepatic β-oxidation, mitochondrial dysfunction, and chronic inflammation-accelerate fibrosis progression by 4–5% per decade after age 40 [5], culminating in a 15-fold elevated HCC risk by age 65 [6]. This is compounded by metabolic multimorbidity in aging populations, where >70% of NAFLD patients ≥ 45 years concurrently exhibit T2DM, hypertension, or CVD [7], creating a bidirectional disease cascade that amplifies liver damage.

Whereas high-income nations have achieved modest mortality reductions through enhanced detection and therapeutic advances, low to middle-income countries face a dual challenge of rising incidence rates compounded by limited healthcare access [20]. Notably, the Socio-demographic Index (SDI) reveals a critical nonlinear relationship with NAFLD burden: regions with medium SDI (e.g., North Africa, Middle East, Latin America) exhibit the highest incidence and DALY rates (Figs 2A-D), surpassing both high- and low-SDI areas. This “SDI paradox” arises from rapid urbanization in transitioning economies, driving nutrition transitions towards Western diets and sedentary lifestyles [21], while healthcare systems remain under-resourced for early NAFLD detection and metabolic management. In contrast, high-SDI regions benefit from established prevention programs, yet face emerging challenges in aging subgroups and socioeconomic disparities within countries (e.g., Eastern Europe’s 3.36% annual ASDR rise).

Our projections indicate potential stabilization of mortality rates by 2035, although absolute case numbers will continue escalating due to persistent demographic shifts. By 2050, the global population aged ≥60 years will double [9], with low/middle-income countries experiencing the most rapid aging. This demographic wave will intersect with SDI-driven risk factor disparities: in high-SDI nations, aging populations may offset mortality gains from advanced care, whereas medium-SDI regions confront exponential growth in NAFLD-related complications due to delayed diagnosis and limited fibrosis monitoring.

The disproportionate disease burden observed in Middle Eastern and Latin American populations aligns with regional epidemics of obesity (≥ 30%) and type 2 diabetes (≥ 15%) [22]. In Andean Latin America, the confluence of genetic predisposition (PNPLA3 polymorphism frequency: 49%), accelerated population aging, postmenopausal metabolic changes in women, and nutritional transitions explains the exceptionally high DALY rates [23].

Decomposition of contributions to NAFLD incidence reveals distinct patterns in the ≥ 45-year-old population. Population growth emerged as the dominant driver, accounting for 81.97% of the increase—a contribution greater than that observed in the all-age population. Concurrently, the contribution of epidemiological changes (i.e., age-specific incidence rates) declined from 33.76% to 18.97%, suggesting a more rapid rise in incidence among younger segments of the population. Interestingly, population aging exhibited a significant negative contribution (−0.63%). This could be attributed to the ‘healthy survivor effect,’ where longer-lived individuals are metabolically healthier, and the progression of existing NAFLD cases to advanced liver disease, thus removing them from the incident pool.

Our findings carry several important implications for clinical practice and public health policy. Firstly, among adults aged ≥45 years, the incidence and prevalence of NAFLD have increased markedly. This rise, coupled with the pronounced sex-specific disparity, characterized by higher incidence in women yet persistently elevated mortality in men, called for differentiated prevention and management strategies. The disproportionately high burden in medium-SDI regions further underscores the need for regionally tailored public health interventions. Secondly, these results highlight the importance of early and systematic liver disease screening in middle-aged and older adults, especially those with metabolic comorbidities. The accelerated progression of fibrosis after age 45 supports the incorporation of non-invasive fibrosis assessment (e.g., FIB-4, ELF test) into routine practice for high-risk patients. Furthermore, sex-specific management protocols should be developed. For women ≥45 years, screening programs should intensify around the menopausal transition, with consideration of hormone replacement therapy’s potential hepatoprotective effects in appropriate candidates [24]. For men, aggressive cardiovascular risk factor modification takes priority, given their elevated mortality risk. This includes intensive lipid management, blood pressure control, and diabetes optimization, as cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in male NAFLD patients [6]. Finally, healthcare systems in high-burden regions require structural adaptations. Integration of NAFLD care into primary healthcare delivery, training of community health workers in basic hepatic steatosis assessment, and development of telehealth platforms for specialist consultation can improve access to care in resource-limited settings [25]. Public health interventions should prioritize policy-level changes, including taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages, urban planning promoting physical activity, and food security programs ensuring access to nutrient-dense foods [26].

This study represents the first comprehensive, age-stratified analysis of global NAFLD burden utilizing the complete GBD 2021 dataset with advanced Bayesian modeling techniques. Our methodological approach offers several advantages: First, harmonized diagnostic criteria across diverse healthcare systems through the FLI surrogate approach, validated against local imaging cohorts. Second, rigorous uncertainty quantification through 1000 Bayesian posterior draws. Third, comprehensive decomposition analysis elucidating the relative contributions of demographic versus epidemiological drivers. Fourth, sex-stratified projections extending to 2035, enabling healthcare planning for anticipated demographic transitions.

Several limitations should be considered in this study. First, diagnostic heterogeneity across countries may introduce systematic bias. The FLI surrogate exhibits suboptimal sensitivity in lean NAFLD populations, particularly in Asian countries where genetic variants (PNPLA3, TM6SF2) increase steatosis risk independent of BMI [27]. This may lead to underestimation of disease burden in populations with high genetic susceptibility but lower average BMI. Second, the ecological nature of our analysis precludes individual-level causal inferences. While we observe associations between SDI levels and disease burden, these relationships may not hold at the individual level due to ecological fallacy [28]. Third, uncertainty in UN demographic projections may affect our BAPC forecasts, particularly in regions experiencing rapid political or economic transitions. Fourth, temporal changes in diagnostic practices (increased ultrasonography availability, updated clinical guidelines) may introduce period effects that confound true epidemiological trends [29]. Fifth, Our analysis is inherently limited by the ecological nature of GBD data, which precludes subgroup analyses by specific comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease). However, population-level evidence suggests >70% of NAFLD patients ≥45 years exhibit metabolic multimorbidity, with diabetes prevalence ranging from 15–25% in medium-SDI regions to 8–12% in high-SDI areas. Future studies utilizing individual patient data are needed to elucidate comorbidity-specific risk patterns and therapeutic responses in aging NAFLD populations. [30].

Future efforts should focus on standardizing data collection and diagnostic criteria, particularly in high-burden aging populations. Incorporating real-world clinical and metabolic biomarkers will enable more accurate projections and intervention strategies. Addressing these challenges is essential for formulating effective public health strategies against NAFLD in older adults. We should focus on future research that include cost-effectiveness of population-level screening in high-prevalence regions, validation FLI against transient elastography in resource-limited settings, novel biomarkers for fibrosis risk stratification in aging populations [31], and interventions addressing social determinants of NAFLD disparities [32].

Conclusion

This study evaluated the global burden of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in adults who are 45 years old and older, covering the years from 1990 to 2021, revealing significant epidemiological shifts. The rates of incidence and prevalence, adjusted for age, rose by 18.3% and 24.5%, severally, with disproportionate burdens in middle-to-high SDI regions due to metabolic risks and aging demographics. While women showed higher incidence rates, men exhibited consistently elevated mortality rates, highlighting unmet intervention needs. Projections to 2035 suggest rising incidence (particularly among women) alongside modest declines in mortality rates and life years adjusted for disability, emphasizing the need for prevention strategies designed for particular age groups and genders.

Data Availability

The original data of this study are all from the publicly available GBD database (URL: https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-results/), and do not include personal information such as patients’ names or IDs. The population data was downloaded from WPP (https://population.un.org/wpp/). Therefore, this study does not require an additional ethical statement. In addition, the code in this study has been uploaded to Github (URL: https://github.com/shuangliu2025/R_FOR_GBD_ANALYSIS/tree/main).

Funding Statement

These findings are the result of work supported by “Theater Army 2023 Medical Autonomous Research Project” grant from Support Department of the Central Theater Army. Project Number: 2023LC09. China. The full name of the authors who received this award are Chenyang Wang. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors, and no official endorsement by the Central Theater Army PLA is intended or should be inferred. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Younossi ZM, Koenig AB, Abdelatif D, Fazel Y, Henry L, Wymer M. Global epidemiology of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-Meta-analytic assessment of prevalence, incidence, and outcomes. Hepatology. 2016;64(1):73–84. doi: 10.1002/hep.28431 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, Charlton M, Cusi K, Rinella M, et al. The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology. 2018;67(1):328–57. doi: 10.1002/hep.29367 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Estes C, Razavi H, Loomba R, Younossi Z, Sanyal AJ. Modeling the epidemic of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease demonstrates an exponential increase in burden of disease. Hepatology. 2018;67(1):123–33. doi: 10.1002/hep.29466 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mantovani A, Byrne CD, Bonora E, Targher G. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and risk of incident type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(2):372–82. doi: 10.2337/dc17-1902 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Rinella ME. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review. JAMA. 2015;313(22):2263–73. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.5370 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Targher G, Byrne CD, Lonardo A, Zoppini G, Barbui C. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and risk of incident cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis. J Hepatol. 2016;65(3):589–600. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2016.05.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Younossi ZM, Golabi P, de Avila L, Paik JM, Srishord M, Fukui N, et al. The global epidemiology of NAFLD and NASH in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hepatol. 2019;71(4):793–801. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2019.06.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Le MH, Yeo YH, Li X, Li J, Zou B, Wu Y, et al. 2019 global NAFLD prevalence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20(12):2809-2817.e28. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lazarus JV, Mark HE, Anstee QM, Arab JP, Batterham RL, Castera L, et al. Advancing the global public health agenda for NAFLD: a consensus statement. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;19(1):60–78. doi: 10.1038/s41575-021-00523-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators. Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1223–49. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30752-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Castellana M, Donghia R, Guerra V, Procino F, Lampignano L, Castellana F, et al. Performance of fatty liver index in identifying non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in population studies. a meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2021;10(9):1877. doi: 10.3390/jcm10091877 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1204–22. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30925-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, Rubin DB. Bayesian data analysis. Third ed. Chapman and Hall/CRC. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ahmad OB, Boschi-Pinto C, Lopez AD, Murray CJL, Lozano R, Inoue M. Age standardization of rates: a new WHO standard. 31. World Health Organization. 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.GBD 2019 Universal Health Coverage Collaborators. Measuring universal health coverage based on an index of effective coverage of health services in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1250–84. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30750-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jürgens V, Ess S, Cerny T, Vounatsou P. A Bayesian generalized age-period-cohort power model for cancer projections. Stat Med. 2014;33(26):4627–36. doi: 10.1002/sim.6248 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1789–858. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32279-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dwyer-Lindgren L, Bertozzi-Villa A, Stubbs RW, Morozoff C, Kutz MJ, Huynh C, et al. US county-level trends in mortality rates for major causes of death, 1980-2014. JAMA. 2016;316(22):2385–401. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.13645 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Younossi ZM, Stepanova M, Younossi Y, Golabi P, Mishra A, Rafiq N, et al. Epidemiology of chronic liver diseases in the USA in the past three decades. Gut. 2020;69(3):564–8. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318813 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ong JP, Younossi ZM. Epidemiology and natural history of NAFLD and NASH. Clin Liver Dis. 2007;11(1):1–16, vii. doi: 10.1016/j.cld.2007.02.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Stender S, Kozlitina J, Nordestgaard BG, Tybjærg-Hansen A, Hobbs HH, Cohen JC. Adiposity amplifies the genetic risk of fatty liver disease conferred by multiple loci. Nat Genet. 2017;49(6):842–7. doi: 10.1038/ng.3855 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC). Worldwide trends in body-mass index, underweight, overweight, and obesity from 1975 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 2416 population-based measurement studies in 128·9 million children, adolescents, and adults. Lancet. 2017;390(10113):2627–42. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32129-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cropley A, Weltman M. The use of immunosuppression in autoimmune hepatitis: A current literature review. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2017;23(1):22–6. doi: 10.3350/cmh.2016.0089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kozakowski J, Gietka-Czernel M, Leszczyńska D, Majos A. Obesity in menopause - our negligence or an unfortunate inevitability?. Prz Menopauzalny. 2017;16(2):61–5. doi: 10.5114/pm.2017.68594 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.McIsaac M, Buchan J, Abu-Agla A, Kawar R, Campbell J. Global strategy on human resources for health: workforce 2030-a five-year check-in. Hum Resour Health. 2024;22(1):68. doi: 10.1186/s12960-024-00940-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hawkes C, Smith TG, Jewell J, Wardle J, Hammond RA, Friel S, et al. Smart food policies for obesity prevention. Lancet. 2015;385(9985):2410–21. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61745-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Liu Y-L, Reeves HL, Burt AD, Tiniakos D, McPherson S, Leathart JBS, et al. TM6SF2 rs58542926 influences hepatic fibrosis progression in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Nat Commun. 2014;5:4309. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5309 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Greenland S, Robins J. Invited commentary: ecologic studies--biases, misconceptions, and counterexamples. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;139(8):747–60. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Rinella ME, Lazarus JV, Ratziu V, Francque SM, Sanyal AJ, Kanwal F, et al. A multisociety Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature. Ann Hepatol. 2024;29(1):101133. doi: 10.1016/j.aohep.2023.101133 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Lonardo A, Nascimbeni F, Mantovani A, Targher G. Hypertension, diabetes, atherosclerosis and NASH: Cause or consequence?. J Hepatol. 2018;68(2):335–52. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2017.09.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Eddowes PJ, Sasso M, Allison M, Tsochatzis E, Anstee QM, Sheridan D, et al. Accuracy of fibroscan controlled attenuation parameter and liver stiffness measurement in assessing steatosis and fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(6):1717–30. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Allen AM, Therneau TM, Larson JJ, Coward A, Somers VK, Kamath PS. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease incidence and impact on metabolic burden and death: a 20 year-community study. Hepatology. 2018;67(5):1726–36. doi: 10.1002/hep.29546 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Amir Hossein Behnoush

26 Aug 2025

Dear Dr. Wang,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 10 2025 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.

  • 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,

Amir Hossein Behnoush

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 the online submission form, you indicated that [The original datasets are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.].

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

3. We note that Figures 1 A-D in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 A-D to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.   

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Using GBD 1990–2021 data and Bayesian age-period-cohort modeling, the manuscript examines and projects NAFLD burden in adults ≥45, finding rising incidence, prevalence, mortality, and DALYs—especially in medium-SDI regions. The manuscript requires major revisions.

1. Clarify how FLI ≥60 and imaging criteria were applied uniformly across 204 countries in the GBD framework.

2. Provide full BAPC model specifications (priors, knot placement, software) and include goodness-of-fit or convergence metrics.

3. Deposit all input data and analysis code in a public repository and detail the ethical exemption for de-identified GBD data.

4. Embed high-resolution figures with self-explanatory axes/legends and mark statistically significant EAPCs in tables.

5. Add subgroup analyses by key comorbidities (e.g., diabetes, hypertension) or explicitly note their absence as a limitation.

6. Expand the Limitations to discuss misclassification bias, uncertainty in demographic projections, and ecological inference constraints.

Reviewer #2: Very interesting topic and good work from the authors, I have the following comments:

1- Introduction would benefit from a paragraph stating a clearer indication of the research.

2- Methods should AAlnagar-447 state what inclusion and exclusion criteria were used.

3- Why did authors chose this cut off age ?

4- Discussion should mention the clinical implication of the highlighted results and suggest changes in the clinical practice.

5- Authors should elaborate on the limitations of their work and suggest future research to over come those limitations.

**********

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: Yes:  Amr Alnagar

**********

[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. 2026 Mar 4;21(3):e0342697. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0342697.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


9 Oct 2025

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Global, Regional, and National Burden of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Among Adults Aged ≥ 45 Years: A Comprehensive Analysis of Epidemiological Trends and Projections to 2035” [Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-38194]. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have carefully considered all comments and have incorporated suggested revisions throughout the manuscript. Revised portions are visible with track changes.

Journal Requirements

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.

Response: We appreciate the editor and reviewers’ important suggestions to help us enhance this work. Thanks a lot! We have revised the manuscript point-by-point below.

Requirement 1: PLOS ONE Style Requirements

Reply: We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to comply with PLOS ONE formatting requirements, including:

1.Updated reference formatting to PLOS ONE style with numbered citations.

2.Revised figure and table formatting according to PLOS ONE templates.

3.Ensured proper file naming conventions.

Requirement 2: Data Availability Statement

Reply: We have updated our Data Availability Statement to read: "The original data of this study are all from the publicly available GBD database (URL: https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-results/), and do not include personal information such as patients' names or IDs. The population data was downloaded from WPP (https://population.un.org/wpp/). Therefore, this study does not require an additional ethical statement. In addition, the code in this study has been uploaded to Github (URL: https://github.com/shuangliu2025/R_FOR_GBD_ANALYSIS/tree/main)."

Requirement 3: Copyright Issues for Figures 1A-D

Reply: Thank you for your careful review regarding potential copyright concerns related to Figures 1A–D. We confirm that all maps used in these figures were generated entirely using the rnaturalearth package in R, which sources data exclusively from Natural Earth—a public domain dataset.

According to the official Natural Earth Terms of Use (see attached screenshot and website: https://www.naturalearthdata.com/), “All versions of Natural Earth raster + vector map data found on this website are in the public domain. You may use the maps in any manner, including modifying the content and design, electronic dissemination, and offset printing. The primary authors, Tom Patterson and Nathaniel Vaughn Kelso, and all other contributors renounce all financial claim to the maps and invites you to use them for personal, educational, and commercial purposes. No permission is needed to use Natural Earth. Crediting the authors is unnecessary.”

Therefore, the basemaps incorporated in Figures 1A–D do not contain any copyrighted or proprietary materials (e.g., Google Maps, ESRI, or NASA imagery). The maps were programmatically rendered in R using open-access, public-domain data and are fully compatible with the CC BY 4.0 license under which PLOS ONE publishes its content.

To ensure transparency, we have added the following note to the figure legend (lines 252–253): “Basemap source: Natural Earth (public domain, https://www.naturalearthdata.com/). Maps were generated using the rnaturalearth package in R.”

We respectfully request confirmation that this clarification satisfies the journal’s licensing requirements.

Reviewer Comments:

Reviewer 1

Comment 1.1: Clarify how FLI ≥60 and imaging criteria were applied uniformly across 204 countries in the GBD framework.

Reply: We have added methodological details in the Methods section (lines 102–111): “GBD 2021 harmonized NAFLD case definitions by integrating country-specific diagnostic modalities. For 87 countries with biopsy/imaging studies, cases required histologic steatosis (≥5% hepatocytes) or imaging-confirmed hepatic fat fraction >5% by MRI-PDFF or ultrasound. In remaining nations, FLI ≥60 was applied as a surrogate, validated against local imaging cohorts where available (e.g., FLI sensitivity/specificity = 0.73/0.86 in European and 0.68/0.81 in Asian populations). GBD’s DisMod-MR 2.1 tool adjusted for cross-country diagnostic heterogeneity by incorporating covariates such as healthcare access and obesity prevalence. Mortality estimates incorporated vital registration systems, verbal autopsy data, and cancer registry records coded to ICD-10 codes K75.8 and K76.0.”

Comment 1.2: Provide full BAPC model specifications (priors, knot placement, software) and include goodness-of-fit or convergence metrics.

Reply: We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments. Your feedback is essential for improving the quality of our work.

We have added BAPC model specifications (priors, knot placement, software) and goodness-of-fit methodological details in the Methods section (lines 141–162) as following�“The Bayesian Age-Period-Chort (BAPC) model produces more reliable predictions of global disease burden trends by leveraging the similarity of age, period, and cohort effects across adjacent time intervals. It applies a second-order random walk prior to smooth these three types of effects and derives posterior rate estimates through Bayesian inference. The model uses integrated nested Laplace approximation (INLA) to estimate marginal posterior distributions, which mitigates mixing and convergence issues often associated with traditional Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling in Bayesian analysis. To ensure smoothness, the BAPC model assigns independent mean-zero normal distributions as priors to the second-order differences of all effects, with the prior distribution for the age effect specified as follows�

Second-order random walk (RW2) priors were assigned to age, period, and cohort effects with precision hyperparameters following Gamma(1, 0.00005) distributions. Sum-to-zero constraints were implemented to resolve identifiability issues inherent in age-period-cohort models. Bayesian inference utilized Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation (INLA) for computational efficiency. Model selection employed the Deviance Information Criterion (DIC), with final models achieving DIC values <15,000 across all regions. Convergence was assessed using effective sample size (ESS >1000) and Gelman-Rubin potential scale reduction factors (<1.1). Model validation involved comparing predicted versus observed rates from 1990-2021, achieving mean absolute percentage errors <5% across 95% of country-years.”

Revision: Relative BAPC model details was added in Method part of the manuscript.

Comment 1.3: Deposit all input data and analysis code in a public repository and detail the ethical exemption for de-identified GBD data.

Reply: We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments. We have repeatedly verified that the original data of this study are all from the publicly available GBD database (URL: https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-results/), and do not include personal information such as patients' names or IDs. The population data was downloaded from WPP (https://population.un.org/wpp/). Therefore, this study does not require an additional ethical statement. In addition, the code in this study has been uploaded to Github (URL: https://github.com/shuangliu2025/R_FOR_GBD_ANALYSIS/tree/main)

Comment 1.4: Embed high-resolution figures with self-explanatory axes/legends and mark statistically significant EAPCs in tables.

Reply: We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments. After re-examination, we have enhanced all figures with higher resolution (300 DPI minimum) and improved readability. Tables 1-2 now include asterisks (*) to mark statistically significant EAPCs (95% CI excludes zero), with p-values <0.05 considered significant..Figure legends have been expanded with self-explanatory axes labels and comprehensive statistical annotations.

Comment 1.5: Add subgroup analyses by key comorbidities or explicitly note their absence as a limitation.

Reply: Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that understanding the role of comorbidities would add valuable nuance to our findings.

While GBD's aggregated data structure precludes individual-level comorbidity stratification, we have added relevant discussion: "Fifth, Our analysis is inherently limited by the ecological nature of GBD data, which precludes subgroup analyses by specific comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease). However, population-level evidence suggests >70% of NAFLD patients ≥45 years exhibit metabolic multimorbidity, with diabetes prevalence ranging from 15-25% in medium-SDI regions to 8-12% in high-SDI areas. Future studies utilizing individual patient data are needed to elucidate comorbidity-specific risk patterns and therapeutic responses in aging NAFLD populations." (Lines 511-518)

Comment 1.6: Expand the Limitations to discuss misclassification bias, uncertainty in demographic projections, and ecological inference constraints.

Reply:

We thank the reviewer for this critical suggestion. We agree that a more detailed discussion of the methodological limitations is essential for a comprehensive understanding of our study's findings. We have now expanded the 'Limitations' section in the discussion to include a dedicated paragraph addressing misclassification bias, uncertainty in demographic projections, and the constraints of ecological inference. This addition further clarifies the interpretative boundaries of our analysis and strengthens the manuscript.

Revision: We have added a new paragraph (lines 498–511): “First, diagnostic heterogeneity across countries may introduce systematic bias. The FLI surrogate exhibits suboptimal sensitivity in lean NAFLD populations, particularly in Asian countries where genetic variants (PNPLA3, TM6SF2) increase steatosis risk independent of BMI. This may lead to underestimation of disease burden in populations with high genetic susceptibility but lower average BMI. Second, the ecological nature of our analysis precludes individual-level causal inferences. While we observe associations between SDI levels and disease burden, these relationships may not hold at the individual level due to ecological fallacy. Third, uncertainty in UN demographic projections may affect our BAPC forecasts, particularly in regions experiencing rapid political or economic transitions. Forth, temporal changes in diagnostic practices (increased ultrasonography availability, updated clinical guidelines) may introduce period effects that confound true epidemiological trends .”

Reviewer 2

Comment 2.1: Introduction would benefit from a paragraph stating a clearer indication of the research.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for this critical suggestion. We agree that a clearer statement of the research aims would strengthen the introduction. As suggested, we have added a new paragraph at the end of the introduction section to explicitly outline the specific objectives and rationale of our study.

Reversion: We have added a new paragraph at the end of the introduction section (lines 84–95): “Given the accelerated disease progression observed in middle-aged and older adults, combined with the growing global prevalence of metabolic risk factors, there is an urgent need for comprehensive age-stratified analyses of NAFLD burden. While previous Global Burden of Disease studies have provided valuable insights into overall NAFLD epidemiology, they have not specifically examined the unique patterns and drivers affecting adults ≥45 years—a population experiencing the most rapid demographic growth globally. This knowledge gap limits our ability to develop targeted prevention strategies and allocate healthcare resources effectively for this high-risk demographic. Therefore, this study aims to provide the first comprehensive assessment of NAFLD burden specifically among adults aged ≥45 years, utilizing the most recent Global Burden of Disease 2021 data to inform evidence-based policy development. ”

Comment 2.2: Methods should state what inclusion and exclusion criteria were used.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. We appreciate the need for clarity regarding data selection. As the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study utilizes systematically identified published and unpublished data rather than individual-level patient records, traditional inclusion/exclusion criteria for participants are not directly applicable. Instead, the GBD methodology employs rigorous criteria for the inclusion of data sources and the modeling process.

To address this comment, we have revised the subsection 'Data Sources' in Method. This subsection details the GBD's process for identifying, selecting, and inputting data. We believe this addition provides the necessary transparency regarding how the estimates were generated.

Reversion: Added a new paragraph in Data Sources subsection (lines 112–120): “Inclusion criteria required: (1) age ≥45 years at diagnosis; (2) NAFLD defined per FLI ≥60 or imaging-confirmed hepatic steatosis (≥5% hepatocyte involvement); and (3) residency in a GBD-listed country/territory. Exclusion criteria, applied through GBD's hierarchical cause-of-death modeling, included: (1) secondary hepatic steatosis due to alcohol consumption >20g/day (men) or >10g/day (women); (2) viral hepatitis B or C coinfection; (3) drug-induced steatosis (corticosteroids, methotrexate, amiodarone); (4) hereditary metabolic disorders (Wilson disease, alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency); and (5) other chronic liver diseases taking precedence in GBD's mutually exclusive disease hierarchy.”

Comment 2.3: Why did authors choose this cut-off age?

Reply: We thank the reviewer for this important question. The selection of the cut-off age of ≥45 years was based on a combination of clinical, epidemiological, and pragmatic rationales. To address this question, we have added justification in Methods section.

Reversion:

Added justification in Methods (lines 121–132): “This study focuses on adults aged ≥45 years based on clinical and public health considerations. Beginning in mid-life, metabolic alterations—such as increased insulin resistance, hormonal changes, visceral adiposity, and sarcopenia—promote hepatic lipid accumulation and elevate NAFLD risk. After age 45, fibrosis progression accelerates, with each decade increasing fibrosis risk by 4–5%, and cirrhosis and HCC incidence rise substantially. This group also exhibits high multimorbidity; over 70% of NAFLD patients have concurrent metabolic conditions, compounding mortality risk. Globally, aging populations make this age group a major driver of NAFLD-related healthcare burden. Prior studies often overlook age-specific patterns, limiting targeted interventions. Focusing on this cohort allows clearer insight into demographic and epidemiologic drivers and supports cost-effective early detection and long-term policy planning.”

Comment 2.4: Discussion should mention the clinical implication and suggest changes in clinical practice.

Reply�We thank the reviewer for this crucial suggestion. We agree that discussing the clinical implications of our findings is essential for translating this research into practice. We have now substantially expanded the Discussion section to include a dedicated paragraph.

Reversion:

Expanded the Discussion section (lines 461–485): “Our findings carry several important implications for clinical practice and public health policy. Firstly, among adults aged ≥45 years, the incidence and prevalence of NAFLD have increased markedly. This rise, coupled with the pronounced sex-specific disparity, characterized by higher incidence in women yet persistently elevated mortality in men, called for differentiated prevention and management strategies. The disproportionately high burden in medium-SDI regions further underscores the need for regionally tailored public health interventions. Secondly, these results highlight the importance of early and systemati

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 20251008.docx

pone.0342697.s001.docx (31.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Tiejun Zhang

27 Jan 2026

Global, Regional, and National Burden of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Among Adults Aged ≥ 45 Years: A Comprehensive Analysis of Epidemiological Trends and Projections to 2035

PONE-D-25-38194R1

Dear Dr. Wang,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Tiejun Zhang

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #2: Authors have addressed my suggestions, I am happy with the current version if the manuscript and it should be accepted.

**********

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: Yes:  Amr Alnagar

**********

Acceptance letter

Tiejun Zhang

PONE-D-25-38194R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Wang,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@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. Tiejun Zhang

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 20251008.docx

    pone.0342697.s001.docx (31.5KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The original data of this study are all from the publicly available GBD database (URL: https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-results/), and do not include personal information such as patients’ names or IDs. The population data was downloaded from WPP (https://population.un.org/wpp/). Therefore, this study does not require an additional ethical statement. In addition, the code in this study has been uploaded to Github (URL: https://github.com/shuangliu2025/R_FOR_GBD_ANALYSIS/tree/main).


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES