Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Jun 22;21(6):e0352266. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0352266

Biomarkers of chronic liver disease and their determinants in northern Ethiopia: Evaluating the synergistic impact of HBV and Schistosoma mansoni and the contribution of metabolic and lifestyle factors to liver injury

Gessessew Bugssa 1,2,3,*, Nega Berhe 2,4, Girmay Medhin 2, Shevanti Nayagam 5, Tilahun Teklehaymanot 2, Asgeir Johannessen 4,6
Editor: Seth Agyei Domfeh7
PMCID: PMC13286152  PMID: 42330003

Abstract

Background

Liver diseases are a major global health concern, affecting over 1.5 billion people and ranking among the leading causes of death. Sub-Saharan Africa carries a high burden, yet the underlying etiology of chronic liver disease is poorly described. The aim of this study was to assess biomarkers of chronic liver disease and their determinants in Northern Ethiopia.

Methods

A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted between December 2019 and June 2020 among randomly selected participants aged 5 years or older in Alamata district of Tigray region. Socio-demographic, behavioral, and clinical factors were collected via structured questionnaires; blood was tested for liver function biomarkers and Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) and stool samples for S.mansoni infection. Liver function biomarkers’ abnormalities were defined based on age and sex-specific thresholds. Multivariable hierarchical logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of abnormal alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported.

Results

A total of 767 participants were included, with a median age of 27 years (5–80 years); 53.1% were female and 67.5% resided in rural areas. The prevalence of HBV and S.mansoni infection was 5.9%, and 26.6%, respectively. Overall, 23.5% of participants had abnormal liver function biomarker with 7.3%, 14.2%, 9,4%, and 8.0% had elevated aspartate aminotransferase(AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and total bilirubin levels, respectively. Besides, the De Ritis, aspartate to alanine (AAR) ratio revealed a median of 0.96(IQR:0.62–1.74), with 51% (79/155) of the participants presented with an AAR < 1.0, and 21.3% of participants exhibited an AAR > 2.0. Moreover, the R value depicted the patterns of liver injury with 90(52.0%) participants exhibited R-value below 2(cholestatic injury), whereas 44(22.43%), and 39(22.54%) of the participants were found to have R-values between 2 and 5(mixed injury), and R > 5(hepatocellular injury), respectively. The hierarchical modeling depicted that the infectious domain accounted for the largest portion of model variance (change in Nagelkerke R-squared (ΔR2) =0.157, p < .001). Accordingly, the model demonstrated that several determinants of hepatocellular injury led by significant synergistic interaction between HBV and S. mansoni co-infection conferred a 19.7-fold increase in the odds of elevated ALT (aOR:19.7; 95%CI:5.50, 70.6; p < .001), significantly higher than mono-infections of HBV (aOR:13.7; 95%CI: 5.82, 32.04; p < .001) or S. mansoni (aOR:3.4;95% CI:2.5; 5.51, p < .001). Beyond the infectious synergy, khat chewing (aOR:4.1, 95%CI:2.21, 7.58), and diabetes mellitus (aOR:4.01, 95%CI:1.55–10.36); p = .004) were confirmed as significant independent predictors, each associated with a four-fold increase in likelihood of having elevated ALT.

Conclusion

Liver function biomarkers’ abnormalities were common in northern Ethiopia driven by infectious, metabolic and lifestyle factors. The significant synergy between HBV and S.mansoni creates a compounded risk that far exceeds the impact of mono-infections, diabetes, or khat chewing. The findings emphasize the need for integrated public health strategies that address both infectious and non-infectious determinants simultaneously to effectively reduce the burden of chronic liver disease in the region.

Background

Liver diseases pose a major global health crisis, affecting an estimated 1.5 billion people and contributing to significant illness and mortality [1]. Chronic liver disease (CLD) is defined as liver injury persisting for six or more months without complete resolution. Liver disease rates are consistently rising and ranking among the leading causes of death worldwide [2]. The most severe outcomes, cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), represent advanced stages of liver damage and are the primary drivers of liver-related deaths [3].

Various factors contribute to liver disease, each with distinct characteristics and risk of disease progression [4]. Globally, the most common causes include viral hepatitis, alcoholic liver disease (ALD), and metabolic dysfunction associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) often linked to obesity and metabolic syndrome, all of which can lead to cirrhosis, liver failure, and HCC [5]. Other significant contributors include schistosomiasis [6,7] and khat consumption [8,9].

Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) bears a high burden of liver disease, primarily from endemic viral infections, schistosomiasis, alcohol, hepatotoxic medications, MASLD, and aflatoxin exposure [10]. Chronic liver disease (CLD) represents a significant health burden in Ethiopia, ranking as the 7th leading cause of death and contributing to 24 deaths per 100,000 population in 2019 [11]. Despite this significant burden, a substantial proportion (about 45%) of CLD cases in Ethiopia have an unidentified etiology, largely due to limited diagnostic capacity and comprehensive evaluation [12]. However, there is a striking lack of population-based studies, and hence the true prevalence of liver disease and underlying causes in Ethiopia is largely unknown. The situation is further compounded by the co-occurrence of multiple risk factors, including Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) infection, S.mansoni infection, chronic alcohol consumption, khat use and metabolic factors.

In the present study, therefore, we aimed to provide epidemiological data on biomarkers of chronic liver diseases and associated factors in Tigray region of northern Ethiopia. The findings could provide valuable insight into the liver disease burden in the region and its underlying etiology and may be used as baseline for the development of evidence-based public health strategies and preventive measures tailored to the region’s specific needs.

Methods

Study design and setting

This community-based cross-sectional study was conducted in Alamata District, part of the southern zone of the Tigray National Regional State in Northern Ethiopia. Administratively, the district includes 14 rural kebeles (smallest administrative units) and one semi-urban area under the rural administrations as well as four kebeles within Alamata town (urban administrations).

The population of the district exceeds 150,000 [13] with most of the population engaged in subsistence agriculture and the minority being in urban areas. The economy is largely agrarian-based with cereal and vegetable growing as well as livestock rearing, while the urban population engages in small-scale trade as well as services.

Study period and population

Data was collected between December 23, 2019 to June 12, 2020 among individuals aged 5 years and above. A multi-stage sampling technique was employed. First, five clusters (geographic units) were selected randomly out of the six clusters in the district, ensuring inclusion of both urban and rural clusters. Then from each cluster, two kebeles were randomly selected and proportional allocation was applied based on the total population of each cluster and kebele, ensuring representativeness. Within each kebele, a systematic random sampling technique was used to select households. The details of the sampling procedure are described previously [14].

Since this study was part of a larger project, a subset of patients was randomly identified from an existing dataset. After determining the required sample size for the current study (n = 777), participants were selected using a simple random sampling technique in Microsoft Excel. Specimens for the selected participants had already been collected as part of the larger parent study.

Data collection

Data collection encompassed socio-demographic, behavioral, and health-related variables. The information was obtained through interviewer-administered questionnaires during home visits. Medical history variables such as diagnoses of diabetes mellitus were assessed. Besides, behavioral risk factors, including alcohol and khat consumption were assessed using a structured questionnaire adapted from previous study [15]. Participants were asked about the type, amount, frequency, and duration of alcohol and khat use. For alcohol, both commercially produced drinks (beer, wine, spirits) and traditional beverages (tella, tej, areki) were included. Participants estimated the amount consumed using locally familiar containers (e.g., birille, glass, shot). For khat, participants reported the amount (measured in locally recognized bundles), and frequency (days per week).

Stool sample collection and analysis: Approximately 2–3 grams of fresh stool was collected from each participant in sterile, leak-proof containers. The stool was then processed using the Kato-Katz technique [16]. The slides were examined microscopically by experienced laboratory technologists.

Blood sample collection and analysis: From each participant, 5 ml of venous blood was drawn using sterile vacutainer systems and transferred into plain serum separator tubes. Samples were allowed to clot, then centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 minutes to separate serum. The sera were aliquoted into sterile cryovials and transported in cold boxes to College of Health Sciences and Ayder Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Central Laboratory for analysis.

HBsAg testing: Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) was detected using the VIKIA HBsAg rapid immunochromatographic assay (BioMérieux, Lyon, France). The test results were interpreted according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Liver function biomarkers: Aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), total bilirubin (TBil), direct bilirubin (DBil), and albumin (Alb), were performed using the Cobas c 311/501 chemistry analyzers (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany).

Grading and Interpretation of liver function biomarkers:

  • a. Liver enzyme elevations were graded according to the American College of Gastroenterology guidelines [17]. AST, ALT and ALP elevations were categorized as: borderline (<2 × ULN (Upper Limit Normal)), mild (2–5 × ULN), moderate (5–15 × ULN), and severe (>15 × ULN). Based on the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry criteria [18], abnormal liver function biomarkers were defined as values exceeding the upper limit of normal: AST > 40 IU/L (male) and >32 IU/L (female); ALT > 41 IU/L (male) and >33 IU/L (female); ALP > 129 IU/L (male), > 104 (female) youth and adults, and >420 IU/L(male) and >300IU/L (female) for those <15 years of age; Alb < 3.5 g/dL; TBil > 1.2 mg/dL, and DBil > 0.2 mg/dL.

  • b. The aspartate alanine ratio (AST/ALT, also known as De Ritis ratio) which is abbreviated as AAR was calculated to assess potential etiology of liver injury: a ratio <1.0 indicates non-alcoholic hepatocellular damage, while>=2.0 suggests alcoholic liver disease (ALD) [19,20].

  • c. The R-value (denoted by ‘R’), is defined as the ratio of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) to their upper limit normal (ULN) and is expressed using the formula: [(ALT/ULN of ALT) ÷ (ALP/ULN of ALP)]. This parameter is used to classify liver injury patterns as hepatocellular (R > 5), cholestatic (R < 2), and mixed (2 < R < 5) types based on the recommendations of European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) [5].

Ethics statement

Ethical clearance was granted by the Institutional Review Board of the Aklilu Lemma Institute of Pathobiology, Addis Ababa University (Reference Number ALIPB/IRB/006/2017/18). Further permission was obtained from the Tigray Regional Health Bureau, Alamata Woreda Health Office, and relevant administrative authorities. Written informed consent was obtained from adult participants, while parental or guardian consent along with participants’ assent was secured for those under the age of 18 after explaining the study’s purpose, procedures, and potential risks.

Inclusivity in global research

Additional information regarding the ethical, cultural, and scientific considerations specific to inclusivity in global research is included in the Supporting Information (S1_checklist).

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, means, medians, and interquartile ranges (IQRs) were computed, with data normality assessed using Shapiro-Wilk test. Besides, a violin plot was used to visualize the distribution of liver function biomarkers. Non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test) were used to compare the difference in medians for liver function biomarkers. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square (χ2) test; however, where cell frequency assumptions were violated (i.e., more than 20% of cells had an expected count less than 5), the Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test was employed using Monte Carlo simulation (10, 000 samples). Prior to multivariable modeling, multicollinearity was assessed with variance inflation factors (VIF) with values between 1 and 5) were considered acceptable and variables were kept in the model. A multivariable hierarchical logistic regression was then constructed to identify independent determinants of elevated ALT. Variables exhibiting a p < .25 in bivariate analysis were entered in to the model in five sequential blocks (demographics, infection group, alcohol, khat, and metabolic domains), while age and sex were maintained as fixed covariates throughout. Model performance was evaluated using the Omnibus (chi-square test,) Nagelkerke Pseudo R2, and change in Nagelkerke R-squared (ΔR²) across blocks with Hosmer-Lemeshow test utilized to ensure the final multivariable logistic regression model was a good-fit for the data. Results of the multivariable analysis were reported as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and findings were visualized using a forest plot to illustrate the magnitude of independent and synergistic associations. All analysis was performed using SPSS version 27.0, with statistical significance set at p < .05.

Results

Socio-demographic, lifestyle and health related profiles

A total of 767 (98.7%) participants had complete data and sufficient blood samples for analysis and were included in the study. The median age was 27 years (range 5–80), and 407 (53.1%) were females. The largest age group was 5–14 years representing 27.8% of the total. The majority of the participants (67.5%) were from rural areas. Besides, 219 (28.6%) participants self-reported that they currently consume alcohol while 78 (10.1%) participants reported chewing khat. A total of 204 (26.6%) and 45 (5.9%) participants were infected with S.mansoni and HBV, respectively; 14 (1.8%) were infected with both HBV and S.mansoni (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic lifestyle and health related characteristics of study participants in Alamata district of Tigray region, northern Ethiopia.

Variable Categories Frequency (%)
N = 767
Sex Male 360(46.9)
Female 407 (53.1)
Age 5-14 213(27.8)
15-24 141(18.4)
25-34 119(15.5)
35-44 107(14.0)
45-54 89(11.6)
>=55 98(12.8)
Residence Urban 249 (32.5)
Rural 518(67.5)
Religion Orthodox Christian 666 (86.8)
Muslim 95(12.4)
Others 6(0.8)
Educational Status Illiterate 263(34.3)
1-8 395(51.5)
9-12 72(9.4)
College and above 37(4.8)
Single/underage 319(41.6)
Marital Status Married 259(33.8)
Divorced 118(15.4)
Widowed 71(9.3)
Student/underage 281(36.6)
Farmer 163(21.3)
Occupation Employed 83(10.8)
Housewife 80(10.4)
Merchant 79(10.3)
Daily laborer 39(5.1)
Job seeker 42 (5.5)
Currently Chewing khat Yes 78(10.2)
No 689(89.8)
Frequency of chewing Khat >= 5 times/week 45(5.9)
< 3 days/ week 21(2.7)
< 1 day/week (occasional) 12(1.6)
Currently consuming Alcohol Yes 219 (28.6)
No 548(71.4)
Frequency of Alcohol consumption 5-7 days/week 59(7.7)
1-4 days/week 148(19.3)
<1 day/week (occasional) 12(1.6)
None at all 548(71.4)
Type of alcohol Beer 52(6.8)
Spirit 7(1.0)
Homebrew 130(19.0)
Mix of alcohols 30(3.9)
HBV infection Yes 45(5.9)
No 722(94.1)
S.mansoni infection Yes 204(26.6)
No 563(73.4)
Diabetes mellitus Yes 26(3.4)
No 741(96.6)

Distribution and pattern of liver function biomarkers

A total of 180 (23.5%) subjects had abnormal liver tests. Of these, elevated levels of AST and ALT were observed in 133 (17.3%) and 109 (14.2%) participants, respectively. Abnormal levels of ALP, albumin, total bilirubin and direct bilirubin were detected in 72 (9.4%), 74 (9.6%), 61 (8.0%) and 49 (6.4%) of participants, respectively (Table 2).

Table 2. Prevalence of liver function biomarkers abnormalities among the study participants in Alamata district, northern Ethiopia.

Liver function biomarkers Median (IQR) Min. Max Abnormal
N (%)
Grades of abnormal levels
Borderline (<2xULN)
N (%)
Mild
(2–5ULN)
N (%)
Moderate
(5–15 ULN)
N (%
Severe (>15ULN)
N (%)
Hyper
AST (U/L) 27(17-34) 3.8 410 133(17.3) 56(42.1) 32(24.1) 45(33.83) – –
ALT (U/L) 24(12-33) 4.0 680.0 109(14.2) 24(22.0) 28(25.7) 54(49.5) 3(2.8) –
ALP (U/L) 81(59-103) 34.0 1110.0 72(9.4) 47(65.3) 20(27.8) 5(6.9) – –
TBiL (mg/dl) .3(.15−.52) 0.07 5.80 61(8.0) 33(54.1) 28(45.9) – – –
DBiL (mg/dL) .13(.07−.21) 0.00 3.58 49(6.4) 10(20.4) 36(73,5) 3(6.1) – –
Albumin (g/dL) 3.9(3.7-4.2) 1.07 5.56 74(9.6) * 15(19.0) 5(6.3) 22(27.9) 31(39.2) 6(7.6)
5(0.7) $

NB: the grades for Albumin are: Borderline low (3.0-3.4g/dL), Mild hypoalbuminemia (2.5-2.9g/dL), Moderate Hypoalbuminemia (1.5-2.4g/dL), Severe hypoalbuminemia (<1.5), Hyperalbuminemia (>5.2g/dL), max: maximum, Min: minimum, IQR: Interquartile range, ULN: Upper Limit Normal, *: below normal, $: above normal

The biomarkers of liver function were visualized using violin plots, revealing that the majority of values clustered nearly to normal ranges, with relatively few extreme outliers. Specifically, ALT and AST levels were predominantly concentrated in the mid 20s to 30s IU/L, and ALP values clustered between 70 and 90 IU/L. However, direct and total bilirubin levels were heavily skewed toward the lower end of the scale, while albumin levels remained tightly clustered between 3.5 and 4.0 g/dL (Fig 1). Despite this general trend toward normal distribution, an analysis of degree of severity among those with liver function biomarkers’ abnormalities indicated some variations. While most abnormalities were categorized as borderline or mild, ALT stood out as a primary concern, with 57 (52.3%) of abnormal cases reaching moderate or severe elevation. Similarly, 45 (33.83%) of AST and 5 (6.9%) of ALP abnormalities were classified as moderate. Most notably, a concerning pattern emerged in albumin levels; among those with hypoalbuminemia, 31(39.2%) presented with severe depletion, and 22 (27.8%) moderate depletion. In contrast, elevations in direct and total bilirubin were more contained, with 36 (47.4%) and 28 (46.7%) of abnormal results being only mildly elevated, respectively (Table 2).

Fig 1. Violin plot showing distribution of biomarkers of liver function (graphs were generated using GraphPad Prism version 10, GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA).

Fig 1

Legend: the thick dotted line represents the median, while the thinner dotted lines represent the lower (25%) and, the upper (75%) quartiles).

Liver function biomarkers by socio-demographic, infectious. lifestyle and metabolic factors

Males had significantly higher median AST (28.2 vs. 23.6, P < 0.001), ALT (26.5 vs. 23.0, P < .001) and ALP (86.0 vs.73.5) levels compared to females. Notably, ALT and ALP levels were higher in the lower age group (5–14 years) (P < .05). HBV positive participants had higher levels of AST, ALT, ALP, Tbil and DBil compared to HBV negative participants. S. mansoni infected participants also had higher levels of AST, ALT and Tbil. Of note, khat chewers had significantly higher levels of AST, ALT and ALP, and lower levels of albumin, compared to non-chewers. Participants with diabetes mellitus exhibited significantly higher AST, ALT, ALP and DBil levels compared to those without diabetes mellitus. However, no significant differences were observed with regard to alcohol consumption (Table 3).

Table 3. Comparison of median values of liver function biomarkers by socio-demographic, infectious, lifestyle and metabolic factors in Alamata district, northern Ethiopia.

Variables Liver Function Biomarkers, Median (IQR) values
AST ALT ALP TBL DBL ALB
Sex Male(n = 360) 28(18-39) 27(12-39) 86(58-119) .30(.17−.52) .13(.07−.21) 3.87(3.70-4.12)
Female (n = 40 23(17-37) 23(12-39) 74(59-100) .27(.15−.54) .13(.06−.21) 3.89(3.75-4.2)
P-value <.001 <.001 .001 .443 .604 .198
Age group
(in years)
5-14(n = 213) 28 (18 –34) 29(17-39 89(65-109) .26(.15−.56) .13(.08−.22) 3.91(3.8-4.3)
15-24(n = 141) 27 (17 –32) 24(11-32) 71(556−100) .32(.17−.53) .13(.07−.21) 3.90(3.8-4.1)
25-34(n = 119) 22(17-35) 20(11-32) 73(59-104) .24(.14−.45) .15(.07−.22) 3.83(3.5-4.1)
35-44(n = 107) 28(7-40) 19(10-37) 85(55-1102) .31(.16−.46) .12(.06−.21) 3.83(3.6-4.1)
45-54(n = 89) 23(17-35) 17(12-32) 71(59-98) .31(.17−.56) .14(.07−.22) 3.90(3.7-4.2)
>=55(n = 98) 28 (19 –32) 18(11-30) 75(60-104) .30(.15−.50) .12(.05−.21) 3.90(3.7-4.2)
P-value .879 <.001 .009 .980 .801 .178
HBV infection Yes (=45) 76(31-216) 88(29-306) 121(91-427) 1.26(.26-2.4) .26(.14−.91) 3.5(1.7-4.0)
No (=722) 25 (17 –32) 24(14-32) 74(58-102) .27(.15−.50 .13(.07−.21) 3.9(3.9-4.2)
P-value <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
S. mansoni infection Yes (=204) 29(18-56) 30 (15 –30) 85(59-106) .35(.18−.68) .13(.07−.23) 3.9(3.6-4.2)
No (=563) 25 (17 –32) 21(16-44) 74(59-102) .26(.15−.47) .13(.70−.21) 3.9(3.8-4.2)
P-value <.001 <0.001 .091 <.001 .795 0.79
Alcohol consumption
(frequency)
None 27 (17 –32) 24(12-33) 82(59-103) .27(.15−.51) .13(.07−.21) 3.9(3.7-4.2)
<1 day/week 30(16-69) 29(19-67) 93(52-109) .28(.15−.78) .06(.03−.14) 3.8(3.8-4.2)
1-4 days/week 28(17-37) 23(11-32) 69(56-102) .28(.16−.52) .14(.08−.22) 3.9(3.6-4.1)
5-7/week 30(18-75) 28(11-83) 90(67-106) .36(.19−.66) .15(.07−.21) 3.9(3.6-4.3)
P-value 0.053 .292 0.098 .318 .264 .852
Khat chewing Yes (78) 33(19-70) 34(14-218) 92(65-152) .34(.17−.59) .14(.06−.21) 3.8(3.6-4.0)
No (=689) 27(17- 23(11-32) 76(58-102) .27(.16−.52) .13(.07−.21) 3.9(3.3-4.2)
P-value 33)<0.001 <.001 0.0208 .171 .958 0.022
Diabetes mellitus Yes(n = 26) 70(19-207) 76(16-217) 109(55-170) .39(.11-1.70) .16(.1−.9) 3.21(1.3-3.9)
No (=741) 27 (17 –33) 24(11-33) 76(59-103) .27(.16−.52)) .13(.07−.21) 3.9(3.8-4.2)
P-value <.0001 <.001 .023 .072 .043 <.001

IQR: interquartile range, AST: amino aspartate transferase; ALT: alanine aminotransferase, ALP: alkaline phosphatase; TBL: total bilirubin; DBL: Direct bilirubin; ALB: albumin

Furthermore, the cross-tabulation analysis shown in Table 4 indicated that males had a significantly higher prevalence of elevated (>ULN) ALT levels compared to females (18.8% vs. 9.8%, p < .001). Age and alcohol consumption were not significantly associated with elevated ALT, whereas infectious and metabolic factors demonstrated strong associations. In comparison, elevated ALT was observed in 55.6%, and 25.0% of individuals with HBV, and S. mansoni infections, respectively. Notably, among the small subgroup of individuals with HBV and S. mansoni co-infection, 64.3% (9/14) exhibited elevated ALT levels (p < .001). Similarly, significant associations were also observed for khat chewing and diabetes mellitus (P < .001).

Table 4. Distribution of ALT levels relative to the upper limit of normal (ULN) by socio-demographic, infectious, lifestyle and metabolic factors in Alamata district, northern Ethiopia.

Predictors ALT
Normal
N (%)
>ULN
N (%)
P-value
Sex Male 298(81.2) 69(18.8) <.001
Female 361(90.3) 39(9.8)
Age category (in years) 5-14 182(85.4) 31(14.6) .224
15-24 124(87.9) 17(12.1)
25-34 100(84.0) 19(16.0)
35-44 85(79.4) 22(20.6)
45-54 80(89.9) 9(10.1)
>=55 88(89.8) 10(10.2)
HBV infection Yes 20(44.4) 25(55.6) <.001
No 639(88.5) 83(11.5)
S. mansoni infection Yes 153(75.0) 51(25.0) <.001
No 506(89.9) 57(10.1)
HBV & S. mansoni co-infection Yes 5(35.7) 9(64.3) <.001
No 654(86.9) 99(13.1)
Alcohol consumption Yes 184(84.0) 35(16.0) .339
No 475(86.7) 73(13.3)
Khat chewing Yes 49(62.8) 29(37.2) <.001
No 610(88.5) 79(11.5)
Diabetes mellitus Yes 14(53.8) 12(46.2) <.001
No 645(86.9) 96(13.0)

ALT: Alanine amino transferase, ULN: Upper Limit Normal

To further elucidate the specific nature of hepatic damage, derived indices including the De Ritis ratio (AST/ALT) and the R-value were computed. To determine the etiologies of liver injury among participants presenting with elevated transaminases, the AST/ALT ratio (AAR) was determined. Accordingly, the median AAR was 0.96(IQR:0.62–1.74), with 51% (79/155) of the participants presented with an AAR < 1.0, while 27.7% % fell between 1.0 and 2.0 AAR range. Additionally, 21.3% exhibited an AAR > 2.0. Besides, a chi-square test of independence revealed that HBV positivity was significantly associated with AAR (χ2 = 54.10, P < .001) with post-hoc analysis showing that HBV positive individuals were significantly over-represented in the AAR category below 1.0 (suggestive of acute hepatocellular injury (adjusted residual = 7.3). Similarly, alcohol consumption frequency also showed a significant relationship (χ2 = 18.42, P < .05). Frequent drinkers (5–7 days per week) predominantly exhibited an AAR > 2.0(suggestive of alcoholic hepatitis), whereas non-drinkers were more likely to have an AAR < 1.0(suggestive of non-alcoholic etiologies) (Table 5).

Table 5. Distribution of AST/ALT ratio by socio-demographic, infectious, lifestyle and metabolic characteristics in Alamata district, northern Ethiopia.

Variables AAR values P-value, χ2
<1.00
N(%)
1.00-1.499
N(%)
1.500-1.99
N(%)
>=2.00
N(%)
Sex Male 46(58.2) 13(44.8) 6(42.9) 16(48.5) .410
Female 33(41.8) 16(55.2) 8(57.1) 17(51.5)
Age group 5-14 25(31.6) 6(20.7) 5(35.7) 37(17.4) .793
15-24 17(21.5) 3(10.3) 2(14.3) 33(23.4)
25-34 12(15.2) 7(24.1) 2(14.3) 30(25.2)
35-44 12(15.2) 7(24.1) 0(0.0) 30(28.0)
45-54 8(10.1) 2(6.9) 3(21.4) 23(25.8)
>=55 5(6.3) 4(13.8) 3(21.4) 28(28.6)
Occupation Employed 4(5.1) 3(10.3) 3(21.4) 1(3.0) .240
Merchant 9(11.4) 4(13.8) 0(0.0) 1(3.0)
Farmer 21(26.6) 7(24.1) 3(21.4) 10(30.3)
Housewife 4(5.1) 2(6.9) 3(21.4) 4(12.1)
Daily worker 2(2.5) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 3(9.1)
Student 34(43.0) 9(31.0) 4(28.6) 13(39.4)
Job seeker 5(6.3) 4(13.8) 1(7.1) 1(3.0)
HBV infection yes 19(24.1) ** 6(20.7) 2(14.3) 5(15.2) <.001, 63.5
no 60(75.9) 23(79.3) 12(85.7) 28(84.8)
S. mansoni infection Yes 39(49.4) ** 10(34.5) 6(42.9) 14(42.4) * <.001, 32.5
No 40(50.6) 19(65.5) 8(57.1) 19(57.6)
Khat yes 16(20.3) ** 9(31.0) ** 3(21.4) 5(15.2) <.001, 26.9
no 63(79.7) 20(69.0) 11(78.6) 28(84.8)
Alcohol
consumption (frequency)
Not at all 47(59.5) 18(62.1) 10(71.4) 22(66.7) .015, 22.6
<1 in a week 2(2.5) 1(3.4) 1(7.1) 0(0.0)
1-4 days 19(24.1) 8(27.6) 2(14.3) 4(12.1)
5-7 days a week 11(13.9) 2(6.9) 1(7.1) 7(21.2) **
Diabetes status yes 7(8.9) * 3(10.3) * 2(14.3) 3(9.1) 001, 22.5
no 72(91.1) 26(89.7%) 12(85.7) 30(90.9)

Note: * (Adjusted Residual > 1.96); ** (Adjusted Residual > 2.58)

Moreover, to characterize the biochemical features associated with different patterns of liver injury, the R-value was determined for those who had abnormal or elevated AST, ALT, and/or ALP. Accordingly, the median R-value was found to be 1.97(IQR = 0.83–4.36) with 90(52.0%) of participants having R-value below 2 (cholestatic liver injury) followed by 44(25.43%) with R-value between 2 and 5 (mixed type liver injury), and 39(22.54%) having R-values >5 (hepatocellular liver injury) patterns.

To this end, the cross-tabulation of R-value with De Ritis ratio reveals a clear spectrum of pathologic patterns. The hepatocellular group(R > 5) showed significantly higher frequency of acute injury markers, with 34(85.0%) of participants exhibiting a De Ritis ratio below 1.0 suggesting that this pattern is characterized by a more pronounced ALT elevations relative to AST with likely diagnosis of acute viral hepatitis. Conversely, as the R-value decreased toward a cholestatic pattern (R < 2), the proportion of De Ritis ratios increased with 9(33.3%) of these participants presented a ratio >1 suggesting biliary obstruction or cirrhosis compared to only 2.5% in the hepatocellular group. On the other hand, 28(62.8%) of the participants in the mixed type pattern(2 < R < 5) presented with AAR of <1 suggesting non-alcoholic hepatitis such as NAFLD (Table 6).

Table 6. Cross tabulation of R value and AST/ALT ratio showing the frequency and pattern of liver disease in Alamata district, northern Ethiopia.

R value AST/ALT ratio Frequency (%) Likely diagnosis
(Pattern of diseases)
>5(Hepatocellular) >2 1(2.5%) Alcoholic hepatitis
>5 (hepatocellular) <1 34(85.0%) * Acute viral hepatitis/NAFLD
<2(cholestatic >1.0 9(33.3%) Biliary obstruction/Cirrhosis
2-5(mixed) <1 28(62.8%) Chronic hepatitis/NASH

*P-value < .05(with Adjusted residual of 5.2), NAFLD: non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, NASH: non-alcoholic steatohepatitis.

Synergistic and independent predictors of elevated ALT

To evaluate the independent determinants of hepatocellular injury, a multivariable hierarchical logistic regression model was constructed using elevated ALT as the primary indicator. Following a bivariate screening (p < .25), age and sex were retained as fixed covariates in the first block to ensure robust adjustment of the reported odds ratios. The hierarchical analysis revealed that the infectious domain (Block 2) was the primary driver of liver injury, contributing to significant increase in explanatory power (ΔR2 = 0.157, p < .001) and explaining an additional 15.7% of the variance beyond the demographic baseline (Table 7).

Table 7. Model summary for hierarchical logistic regression.

Block Variable domain Omnibus χ2 (p) Nagelkerke R2 ΔR2
1 Demographics 19.2 (P = .004) 0.044 .044
2 Infection Groups 71.9(P < .001) .201 .157
3 Alcohol .033(P = .856) .201 .00
4 Khat 16.94(P < .001 .236 .035
5 Metabolic (Diabetes mellitus) 7.62 (P = .006) .252 .016

Note: χ²: chi-square, R²: Nagelkerke Pseudo R-squared, ΔR²: change in Nagelkerke R-squared, p: statistical significance. Block 1 includes age and sex as fixed covariates.

Results showed that the 45–54 age group had 70% lower odds of abnormal ALT compared to the 5–14 age group (aOR:0.30, 95%CI:0.12, 0.78; p = .014). To this end, a profound synergistic association was observed among co-infected individuals; those with dual HBV and S. mansoni infection were 19.7 times more likely to exhibit elevated ALT (aOR:19.7; 95% CI: 5.50–70.6; p < .001) a magnitude substantially higher than that observed for HBV (aOR:13.7) or S. mansoni (aOR:3.4) mono-infections. While metabolic and lifestyle factors were also confirmed as independent determinants, with khat chewing (aOR:4.1, p < .001) and diabetes mellitus (aOR: 4.01, p = .004) each associated with a four-fold increase in the likely hood of having elevated ALT, their effect sizes were notably smaller than the infectious synergy. As visualized in the forest plot (Fig 2), the clear separation of the co-infection estimates from the single-infection domains provides compelling visual evidence of a synergistic interaction where the combined burden of pathogens significantly amplifies odds of having liver injury beyond the sum of their individual effects.

Fig 2. Forest plot representing the final multivariable hierarchical logistic regression model for elevated ALT.

Fig 2

Legend: The X-axis is presented on a natural log (ln) scale; data points represent the adjusted odds ratios (OR), and error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals (CI); and the vertical dashed line indicates the null effect (OR=1.0).

Discussion

Our findings provide valuable insights in to the prevalence of liver function biomarkers abnormalities and associated socio-demographic, behavioral, and health-related factors in the Alamata District of the Tigray region, Northern Ethiopia.

Our study found that a notable proportion of participants (23.5%) exhibited one or more abnormal liver function biomarker, with 14.2% having an elevated ALT which is the most specific marker of liver cell injury, suggesting considerable burden of liver-related morbidity in the region. The results are consistent with a study conducted in Gonder in northwest Ethiopia [21], but higher compared to reports from other parts of the world [22,23], which could be ascribed to geographic and methodological differences.

Males exhibited significantly higher serum ALT and AST levels compared to females, which is consistent with studies from Taiwan and the United states [24,25]. Men are known to have more severe liver disease than women of almost any cause, including HBV, and consume more alcohol than women [26]. Moreover, it was also recognized that males had higher ALP levels than females. This is consistent with a study conducted in a Spanish population where males generally have higher ALP levels than females during adulthood though this trend is reversed in women after menopause due to increased bone turnover [27]. Similarly, serum ALP levels also varied significantly across age groups. Participants in the 5–14 years age group exhibited elevated ALP levels compared to Adults, a finding that must be interpreted with caution in the context of chronic liver disease. In pediatric populations, high ALP is frequently a physiological manifestation of intense osteoblastic activity during normal bone growth rather than a definitive marker of hepatic pathology [28,29]. Previous studies have documented that serum ALP levels fluctuate in alignment with pubertal stages, typically peaking between 10 and 15 years of age [27] corresponding with the findings of this study. Therefore, while ALP remains a component of the liver function biomarker, its diagnostic utility for liver injury in this specific age is limited unless accompanied by other cholestatic markers which are not influenced by bone metabolism. Contrary to the usual trends where ALT levels usually rise with age [30–32], this study revealed a higher prevalence of elevated ALT in the younger age (5–14 years) group. Though this seems atypical from a physiological standpoint, such discrepancy could stem from the region’s heavy burden of infectious diseases. Children in these areas often encounter S.mansoni during routine water-contact activities, causing early liver damage [33]. Moreover, HBV’s progression frequently keeps children in an active immune phase, driving up ALT levels beyond those in older, inactive carriers [34].

In this study, elevated ALT levels were significantly associated with HBV infection, with more than half of HBV positive individuals having an ALT > ULN, in line with reports from Ethiopia [35] and other HBV-endemic settings such as Sudan [36], Nigeria [37], and Pakistan [38]. The high correlation between HBV and elevated ALT emphasizes viral hepatitis as a primary driver of liver injury in this community. This aligns with the natural history of HBV in endemic regions, where early life infection frequently results in prolonged immune activity and significant liver damage [39,40]. The strong association observed in this study underscores the urgent need for expanded screening and antiviral treatment to mitigate these risks. Notably, nearly half of individuals with elevated ALT had S.mansoni infection, a well-established cause of periportal fibrosis in endemic regions [41,42]. In line with our findings, a study from northeast Ethiopia [7] documented the impact of S.mansoni infection on various liver function parameters. A review of hepatosplenic schistosomiasis reported substantial increase of key liver injury markers such as ALT, AST, ALP, and bilirubin among infected individuals compared with healthy controls [43]. Our study underscores the contribution of this parasitic infection to hepatic injury in endemic regions.

Moreover, the findings of this study demonstrated that the synergistic association between HBV and S. mansoni creates a compounded impact on liver health, with co-infected individuals facing a significantly higher odds of liver injury compared to those with mono-infections. These results are consistent with a recent meta-analysis study, which found that schistosomal co-infections with hepatitis B had were associated with approximately six times higher odds of developing liver fibrosis or cirrhosis [44]. This suggests that viral replication and parasitic inflammation concurrently exacerbate liver damage beyond their individual effects. Such phenomenon is frequently encountered in endemic regions such as Ethiopia and Egypt where the overlapping burden of these pathogens accelerates the progression of liver scarring and worsens overall hepatic pathology [45].

Interestingly, the proportion of abnormal ALT was also higher among individuals with self-reported diabetes. Previous studies have showed the association of diabetes mellitus, steatotic liver disease and elevated levels of liver enzymes particularly ALT [46–48]. In type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance leads to increased glucose production and fat accumulation in the liver, causing enzymes to leak into the bloodstream, which results in the elevated liver enzyme levels [46]. An increased burden of steatotic liver disease has been observed over the past decades, in parallel with the global obesity epidemic, and its contribution to the burden of liver disease is predicted to rise also in Africa [49].

Khat chewing was significantly associated with abnormal levels of AST, ALT, ALP, and albumin. Importantly, this study revealed that around one third of khat chewers had abnormal ALT levels. Although the mechanisms are not clear, previous studies from Ethiopia [50], Yemen [51], and Somaliland [52] have suggested that regular khat use can lead to abnormal liver function biomarkers and acute and chronic liver disease. Our study contributes to the growing body of evidence on the harmful effects of this habit and its potential impact on liver health in this context.

Furthermore, alcohol consumption also showed a characteristic biochemical signature. The AST/ALT (De Ritis) ratio demonstrated that individuals reporting alcohol use predominantly had AST/ALT ratios>2.0, a widely accepted threshold for alcoholic hepatitis, where pyridoxal-5′-phosphate (vitamin B6) deficiency suppresses ALT activity while mitochondrial injury increases AST release [53–55]. Similar patterns have been documented in Uganda, where self-reported alcohol intake was associated with elevated AST/ALT ratios, and about 11% had ratios >2.0 consistent with alcoholic hepatitis [56]. On the other hand, HBV-positive participants more often exhibited an AST/ALT (De Ritis) ratio<1.0, consistent with classical descriptions of acute or immune-active viral hepatitis, in which cytosolic ALT with its longer half-life tends to rise more than AST [20,55,57]. To this end, our R-value analysis (based on ALT and ALP) further indicated that over half of the participants showed a cholestatic pattern (R < 2), suggesting a considerable burden of biliary or mixed hepatobiliary involvement, which may relate to schistosomal periportal changes, drug exposures, or other cholangiopathic processes. When cross-tabulated with the De Ritis ratio, we found that 85.0% of individuals with a predominantly hepatocellular pattern (R > 5) also had AAR < 1.0, reinforcing the value of combining these indices to identify acute parenchymal damage, particularly in viral hepatitis. Nonetheless, prospective studies are warranted to determine how best to integrate AAR, R-value, and individual liver biomarkers into clinically useful algorithms for differentiating and monitoring diverse liver injury patterns in resource-limited, co-endemic settings.

Our study had important strengths, including the community-based sampling, the inclusion of several health and behavioral variables, the large sample size, and the use of standardized laboratory testing. We also acknowledge certain limitations. While liver function biomarkers are useful indicators of hepatic injury, they cannot determine causality. Besides, single-time measurements may reflect transient abnormalities rather than chronic liver disease. Moreover, we only used liver enzyme levels without the use of imaging modalities or fibrosis biomarkers which might have resulted in an underestimation of liver disease. Furthermore, the cross-sectional nature of this study limits causal inference. Finally, reliance on self-reported behavioral factors, such as alcohol and khat use, might have introduced potential reporting bias.

Conclusion

Approximately one quarter of the study participants exhibited at least one abnormal liver function biomarker, with 14.2% specifically showing elevated ALT, indicating a significant burden of undiagnosed liver disease in the Alamata district. While, HBV, S.mansoni, diabetes mellitus, and khat chewing are independent determinants of liver injury, this study further demonstrates a compounded impact from HBV and S.mansoni co-infection. Multivariable hierarchical logistic regression confirms that this co-infection significantly increases the likelihood of injury compared to mono-infections. Furthermore, the use of liver biomarker indices in this study provide additional clinical insight in to the nature of chronic liver disease. Overall, the findings underscore the substantial contribution of both infectious and non-infectious factors to the burden of liver disease in this setting, and the need for integrated screening and management strategies to reduce the impact of these conditions on liver health.

Supporting information

S1_File. Excel data showing main findings.

(XLSX)

pone.0352266.s001.xlsx (144.1KB, xlsx)
S2_File. Questionnaire to assess socio-demographic, behavioral, and clinical characteristics.

(PDF)

pone.0352266.s002.pdf (143.6KB, pdf)
S3_File. Laboratory reporting formal for HBV and S. mansoni infections.

(PDF)

pone.0352266.s003.pdf (87.5KB, pdf)
S4_File. Laboratory result reporting format for Biomarkers of Liver function.

(PDF)

pone.0352266.s004.pdf (67.8KB, pdf)
S1_checklist. Inclusivity in global research checklist.

(DOCX)

pone.0352266.s005.docx (72KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We express our gratitude to Aklilu Lemma Institute of Pathobiology, Addis Ababa University, for providing the institutional support to conduct this research. We also extend our appreciation to Mekelle University, College of Health Sciences for granting access to its laboratory facilities.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Wang FS, Jian-Gao F, Zhang Z, Gao B, Wang HY. The Global Burden of Liver Disease: The Major Impact of China. Hepatology. 2014;60(6):2099–108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Devarbhavi H, Asrani SK, Arab JP, Nartey YA, Pose E, Kamath PS. Global burden of liver disease: 2023 update. J Hepatol. 2023;79:516–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Blachier M, Leleu H, Peck-Radosavljevic M, Valla D-C, Roudot-Thoraval F. The burden of liver disease in Europe: a review of available epidemiological data. J Hepatol. 2013;58(3):593–608. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2012.12.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gan C, Yuan Y, Shen H, Gao J, Kong X, Zhaodi C. Liver Diseases: Epidemiology, Causes, Trends and Predictions. Signal Transd Targeted Therap. 2025;10:33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with decompensated cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2018;69(2):406–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Berhe N, Myrvang B, Gundersen SG. Intensity of Schistosoma mansoni, Hepatitis B, Age, and Sex Predict Levels of Hepatic Periportal Thickening/Fibrosis (Ppt/F): A Large-Scale Community-Based Study in Ethiopia. American J Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2007;77(6). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bisetegn H, Feleke D, Debash H, Erkihun Y. Hematological and biochemical changes in Schistosoma mansoni infected patients at Haik primary hospital, North-East Ethiopia: A comparative cross-sectional study. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2022;16(8):e0010728. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Vento S, Dzudzor B, Cainelli F, Tachi K. Khat-related liver disease in sub-Saharan Africa: neglected, yet important - Authors’ reply. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(3):e311. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30521-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Someili A, Mohrag M, Abdulrasak M. Hepatitis Associated with Catha edulis Consumption-A Single-Center Study. J Clin Med. 2025;14(4):1206. doi: 10.3390/jcm14041206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Spearman CW, Sonderup MW. Health disparities in liver disease in sub-Saharan Africa. Liver Int. 2015;35(9):2063–71. doi: 10.1111/liv.12884 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Tesfaye BT, Feyissa TM, Workneh AB, Gudina EK, Yizengaw MA. Chronic Liver Disease in Ethiopia with a Particular Focus on the Etiological Spectrums: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;2021:8740157. doi: 10.1155/2021/8740157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Belyhun Y, Maier M, Mulu A, Diro E, Liebert UG. Hepatitis viruses in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16(1):761. doi: 10.1186/s12879-016-2090-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Central Statistical Agency. Summary and Statistical Report of the 2007 Population and Housing Census: Population Size by Age and Sex. Addis Ababa: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bugssa G, Teklehaymanot T, Medhin G, Berhe N. Prevalence and intensity of Schistosoma mansoni infection, and contributing factors in Alamata district of Tigray Region, Northern Ethiopia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2024;18(11):e0012691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012691 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ayano G, Yohannis K, Abraha M, Duko B. The Epidemiology of Alcohol Consumption in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy. 2019;14:26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 16.WHO Expert Committee. Prevention and control of schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminthiasis. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 2002;912:i–vi, 1–57, back cover. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kwo PY, Cohen SM, Lim JK. ACG Clinical Guideline: Evaluation of Abnormal Liver Chemistries. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(1):18–35. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2016.517 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Schumann G, Klauke R, Canalias F, Bossert-Reuther S, Franck PF, Gella F-J. Ifcc primary reference procedures for the measurement of catalytic activity concentrations of enzymes at 37 C. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. 2011;49(9):1439–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ahmadabad MA, Naeimi A, Keymoradzadeh A, Faghani S, Ahmadabad MA, Boroujeni NA, et al. Evaluation of de Ritis (Ast/Alt), Alp/Alt, and Ast/Alp Ratios as Prognostic Factors in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke. BMC Neurology. 2022;22(1):450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Botros M, Sikaris KA. The de Ritis Ratio: The Test of Time. Clinical Biochemist Reviews. 2013;34(3):117. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Melkamu A, Much Y, Yensew A, Laikemariam M, Mandefro B, Adugna A. Liver function test abnormalities and associated factors among liver disease patients at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital Northwest, Ethiopia: Cross sectional study. Qeios. 2024;:1–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ramakrishnan A, Velmurugan G, Somasundaram A, Mohanraj S, Vasudevan D, Vijayaragavan P, et al. Prevalence of abnormal liver tests and liver fibrosis among rural adults in low and middle-income country: A cross-sectional study. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;51:101553. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101553 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Zhang H, He SM, Sun J, Wang C, Jiang YF, Gu Q, et al. Prevalence and etiology of abnormal liver tests in an adult population in Jilin, China. Int J Med Sci. 2011;8(3):254–62. doi: 10.7150/ijms.8.254 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fraser A, Longnecker MP, Lawlor DA. Prevalence of elevated alanine aminotransferase among US adolescents and associated factors: NHANES 1999-2004. Gastroenterology. 2007;133(6):1814–20. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.08.077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chen SC-C, Yeh J-J, Chang M-H, Liao Y-K, Hsiao L-C, Neoh C-A, et al. Gender difference of alanine aminotransferase elevation may be associated with higher hemoglobin levels among male adolescents. PLoS One. 2010;5(10):e13269. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013269 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Guy J, Peters MG. Liver disease in women: the influence of gender on epidemiology, natural history, and patient outcomes. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2013;9(10):633–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Castells Vilella L, Sánchez-Pintos P, Muñiz Llama JF, Gámez Martínez M, Couce ML, Antón J. Age- and Sex-Dynamic Fluctuations and Reference Intervals for Alkaline Phosphatase Among the Spanish Population. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2025;149(1):e19–25. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2023-0335-OA [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Turan S, Topcu B, Gökçe İ, Güran T, Atay Z, Omar A, et al. Serum alkaline phosphatase levels in healthy children and evaluation of alkaline phosphatase z-scores in different types of rickets. J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol. 2011;3(1):7–11. doi: 10.4274/jcrpe.v3i1.02 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bahnemiri MG, Mirabedini S, Mohammadi P, Barmaki H, Qaffaripour Z, Rezapour M. Determination of Serum Alkaline Phosphatase Reference in Healthy Children Aged 1-18 Years. Caspian Journal of Internal Medicine. 2022;13(4):749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zhang J, Wang Z-Y, Zhang J-P, Zhou H, Ding Z. Prevalence of Elevated Alanine Aminotransferase by Diagnostic Criterion, Age, and Gender among Adolescents. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2020;2020:4240380. doi: 10.1155/2020/4240380 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lin H-F, Lai S-W, Lin W-Y, Liu C-S, Lin C-C, Chang C-M. Prevalence and factors of elevated alanine aminotransferase in central Taiwan - a retrospective study. Biomedicine (Taipei). 2016;6(2):11. doi: 10.7603/s40681-016-0011-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Elinav E, Ben-Dov IZ, Ackerman E, Kiderman A, Glikberg F, Shapira Y, et al. Correlation between serum alanine aminotransferase activity and age: an inverted U curve pattern. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100(10):2201–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.41822.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Abebe N, Erko B, Medhin G, Berhe N. Clinico-epidemiological study of Schistosomiasis mansoni in Waja-Timuga, District of Alamata, northern Ethiopia. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:158. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-7-158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.McMahon BJ. Natural history of chronic hepatitis B–clinical implications. The Medscape Journal of Medicine. 2008;10(4):91. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ismael NY, Usmael SA, Belay NB, Mekonen HD, Johannessen A, Orlien SM. Chronic hepatitis B virus infection in Eastern Ethiopia: Clinical characteristics and determinants of cirrhosis. World J Hepatol. 2024;16(7):995–1008. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v16.i7.995 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.A. A. Altom S, MA Nail A, Mudawi Musa A, Modawe GA. Correlation between Hepatitis B Viral Load and Liver Function Test among Hepatitis B Virus Patients in Khartoum State, Sudan. JSMS. 2023;2(2):8–15. doi: 10.37375/sjms.v2i2.2539 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Raheem T, Orukpe-Moses M, Akindele S, Wahab M, Ojerinola O, Akande D. Age, Gender Pattern and Liver Function Markers in Hepatitis B and C Seropositive Participants Attending a Health Facility in Yaba-Lagos, Nigeria. Journal of Biosciences and Medicines. 2021;09(07):44–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Almayali B, Jalil E, Razzaq HA. Comparison between effects of acute and chronic hepatitis B virus on liver functions (Alt, Ast, Alp, and bilirubin) and C-reactive protein. EurAsian Journal of BioSciences. 2020;14(2). [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Han K-H, Kim DY. Chronic HBV Infection with Persistently Normal ALT B. Not to Treat. Hepatol Int. 2008;2:185–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Yin Y, Yang Z, Shen P, Dong H, Chen Y-P, Jiang Z, et al. HBV infection, liver enzymes and their association with adverse liver disease and all-cause death: a matched retrospective cohort study in Eastern China. BMJ Open. 2025;15(8):e096407. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-096407 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ocama P, Opio KC, Seremba E, Ajal P, Apica BS, Aginya EO. The burden, pattern and factors that contribute to periportal fibrosis in HIV-infected patients in an S. mansoni endemic rural Uganda. Afr Health Sci. 2017;17(2):301–7. doi: 10.4314/ahs.v17i2.2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Nigo MM, Odermatt P, Nigo DW, Salieb-Beugelaar GB, Battegay M, Hunziker PR. Morbidity associated with Schistosoma mansoni infection in north-eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(12):e0009375. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009375 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Leite LAC, Pimenta Filho AA, Martins da Fonseca CS, Santana dos Santos B, Ferreira R de C dos S, Montenegro SML, et al. Hemostatic dysfunction is increased in patients with hepatosplenic schistosomiasis mansoni and advanced periportal fibrosis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(7):e2314. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002314 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kmentt L, Wilburn L, Cheng H, Chami GF. Influence of intestinal schistosome and hepatitis B or C coinfection on hepatic disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2025;161:108172. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2025.108172 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Gasim GI, Bella A, Adam I. Schistosomiasis, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C Co-Infection. Virology Journal. 2015;12:19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Shibabaw T, Dessie G, Molla MD, Zerihun MF, Ayelign B. Assessment of liver marker enzymes and its association with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Northwest Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes. 2019;12(1):707. doi: 10.1186/s13104-019-4742-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Mandal A, Bhattarai B, Kafle P, Khalid M, Jonnadula SK, Lamicchane J, et al. Elevated Liver Enzymes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Cureus. 2018;10(11):e3626. doi: 10.7759/cureus.3626 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Mahran HN, Saber LM, Alghaithy AA, Elareefy AA. The role of elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), FasL and atherogenic dyslipidemia in type II diabetes mellitus. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2016;12(1):8–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2016.10.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Spearman CW, Afihene M, Betiku O, Bobat B, Cunha L, Kassianides C, et al. Epidemiology, risk factors, social determinants of health, and current management for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in sub-Saharan Africa. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;6(12):1036–46. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00275-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Orlien SMS, Sandven I, Berhe NB, Ismael NY, Ahmed TA, Stene-Johansen K, et al. Khat chewing increases the risk for developing chronic liver disease: A hospital-based case-control study. Hepatology. 2018;68(1):248–57. doi: 10.1002/hep.29809 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ramzy I, Abdelbary M, Abdelhafez H, Omran D, Al-Amrany M, Al-Shami AM. The effect of chronic khat chewing on liver enzyme levels: a Yemenian study. Egypt J Intern Med. 2013;25(1):37–41. doi: 10.7123/01.ejim.0000425957.34390.61 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Hawa DM, Muse SM, Roberts LR, Fischer PR, Torbenson MS, Fader T. Khat Chewing and Cirrhosis in Somaliland: Case Series. African Journal of Primary Health Care and Family Medicine. 2016;8(1):1–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.O’Hara G, Mokaya J, Hau JP, Downs LO, McNaughton AL, Karabarinde A, et al. Liver function tests and fibrosis scores in a rural population in Africa: a cross-sectional study to estimate the burden of disease and associated risk factors. BMJ Open. 2020;10(3):e032890. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032890 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Botros M, Sikaris KA. The de Ritis Ratio: The Test of Time. The Clinical Biochemist Reviews. 2013;34(3):117. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Torkadi PP, Apte IC, Bhute AK. Biochemical Evaluation of Patients of Alcoholic Liver Disease and Non-alcoholic Liver Disease. Indian J Clin Biochem. 2014;29(1):79–83. doi: 10.1007/s12291-013-0310-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.O’Hara G, Mokaya J, Hau JP, Downs LO, McNaughton AL, Karabarinde A, et al. Liver function tests and fibrosis scores in a rural population in Africa: a cross-sectional study to estimate the burden of disease and associated risk factors. BMJ Open. 2020;10(3):e032890. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032890 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Moriles KE, Azer SA. Alanine Amino Transferase. 2020.

Decision Letter 0

Seth Domfeh

27 Mar 2026

-->PONE-D-26-09027-->-->Biomarkers of Chronic Liver Disease and Their Determinants in Northern Ethiopia-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Bugssa,

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 May 11 2026 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 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.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only   the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot   verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Seth Agyei Domfeh, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

-->1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.-->--> -->-->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. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.-->--> -->-->3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: -->-->We express our gratitude to Aklilu Lemma Institute of Pathobiology, Addis-->-->Ababa University for providing the opportunity to conduct this research. We also extend our-->-->appreciation of Mekelle University (NORAD Project) for financially supporting the laboratory analysis phase of this study.  -->--> -->-->We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. -->-->Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: -->-->The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.-->--> -->-->Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.-->--> -->-->4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.-->--> -->-->5. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file < S1 Data file>. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws.-->--> -->-->Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared:-->--> -->-->-Name, initials, physical address-->-->-Ages more specific than whole numbers-->-->-Internet protocol (IP) address-->-->-Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.)-->-->-Contact information such as phone number or email address-->-->-Location data-->-->-ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order)-->--> -->-->Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants.-->--> -->-->Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.-->--> -->-->Please remove or anonymize all personal information (<specific identifying information in file to be removed>), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.-->--> -->-->6. We note that this data set consists of interview transcripts. Can you please confirm that all participants gave consent for interview transcript to be published?-->--> -->-->If they DID provide consent for these transcripts to be published, please also confirm that the transcripts do not contain any potentially identifying information (or let us know if the participants consented to having their personal details published and made publicly available). We consider the following details to be identifying information:-->-->- Names, nicknames, and initials-->-->- Age more specific than round numbers-->-->- GPS coordinates, physical addresses, IP addresses, email addresses-->-->- Information in small sample sizes (e.g. 40 students from X class in X year at X university)-->-->- Specific dates (e.g. visit dates, interview dates)-->-->- ID numbers-->--> -->-->Or, if the participants DID NOT provide consent for these transcripts to be published:-->-->- Provide a de-identified version of the data or excerpts of interview responses-->-->- Provide information regarding how these transcripts can be accessed by researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data, including:-->-->a) the grounds for restriction-->-->b) the name of the ethics committee, Institutional Review Board, or third-party organization that is imposing sharing restrictions on the data-->-->c) a non-author, institutional point of contact that is able to field data access queries, in the interest of maintaining long-term data accessibility.-->-->d) Any relevant data set names, URLs, DOIs, etc. that an independent researcher would need in order to request your minimal data set.-->--> -->-->For further information on sharing data that contains sensitive participant information, please see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data-->--> -->-->If there are ethical, legal, or third-party restrictions upon your dataset, you must provide all of the following details (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-access-restrictions):-->-->a) A complete description of the dataset-->-->b) The nature of the restrictions upon the data (ethical, legal, or owned by a third party) and the reasoning behind them-->-->c) The full name of the body imposing the restrictions upon your dataset (ethics committee, institution, data access committee, etc)-->-->d) If the data are owned by a third party, confirmation of whether the authors received any special privileges in accessing the data that other researchers would not have-->-->e) Direct, non-author contact information (preferably email) for the body imposing the restrictions upon the data, to which data access requests can be sent-->--> -->-->7. 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.

8. 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. 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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->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:   This manuscript investigates the prevalence and determinants of liver function biomarker abnormalities in a community-based population. The study addresses an important public health issue in a region where infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B and Schistosomiasis remain endemic and where lifestyle factors such as Catha edulis consumption may influence liver health.

The community-based design and relatively large sample size (n = 767) are strengths. However, several methodological, statistical, and interpretational issues require clarification or revision before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Major:

1. A substantial proportion of the study population belongs to the 5 to 14 year age group (27.8%), but some behavioral variables such as alcohol consumption and khat chewing are analyzed across the entire cohort. It is unclear whether these behavioral variables were assessed only among adults or among all participants. If minors were included in these analyses, this raises ethical and methodological concerns. Age-adjusted analyses or age-restricted behavioral analyses (e.g., ≥15 years) may be necessary.

2. Whether age-adjusted models were used in the regression analysis.

3. The study defines abnormal liver biomarkers using fixed thresholds for ALT and ALP. However, these appear to be adult reference ranges, despite inclusion of children. This is particularly problematic for ALP, which is physiologically elevated in children due to bone growth. Authors should clarify whether Age-specific laboratory reference ranges were applied, or adult reference ranges were used for all participants. Failure to address this could prevalence bias estimates of abnormal biomarkers.

4. The study focuses heavily on abnormal ALT as an indicator of liver disease. However, ALT elevation does not necessarily indicate chronic liver disease and may reflect transient liver injury. Possible causes include Viral hepatitis, Parasitic infection, Metabolic dysfunction, Drug or toxin exposure. Therefore, statements suggesting a ‘huge burden of undiagnosed liver disease’ should be interpreted cautiously.

5. The manuscript reports higher ALT levels among participants aged 5 to 14 years, which is unusual and requires deeper exploration.

6. The description of the regression analysis lacks several important details. Although bivariate logistic regression followed by multivariable analysis was conducted, whether key confounders (age and sex) were considered for the adjustments.

7. The authors used bivariate logistic regression models with P < 0.25 in the bivariate analysis. Why was p value <0.25 selected? If p< 0.05 is considered, the conclusion will be different?

8. The reported association between HBV infection and abnormal ALT (AOR ≈ 18) is extremely strong and requires careful interpretation.

Minor:

1. The text indicates that most participants were from rural areas, while the table shows 67.5% of urban residence. This inconsistency must be corrected.

2. Albumin is reported as mg/dL, whereas the correct unit is g/dL. This error should be corrected throughout the manuscript.

3. Several minor errors are present. For examples, “Sever” → Severe, “Mini.” → Min, “73,5” → 73.5

Reviewer #2:   In the article ‘Biomarkers of Chronic Liver Disease and Their Determinants in Northern Ethiopia’ Gessessew et al examined the prevalence and determinants of biomarkers indicative of chronic liver disease in a community in Northern Ethiopia. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study involving 767 participants, assessing liver function biomarkers and infections. The authors found that nearly a quarter of participants had abnormal liver biomarkers, with significant associations between elevated ALT and factors such as HBV infection, S. mansoni infection, khat chewing, and diabetes mellitus.

Major concern:

1. The major concern in the study is the single-time measurements of liver function biomarkers. Although the study covers a 5-year period liver function was assessed only at one time point this may capture transient abnormalities rather than chronic liver disease, and lead to misclassification of the liver health status of participants.

2. Interpretation of liver health is based on analysis of each biomarker independently (AST/ALT ratios not computed).

3. Wide age range. The study population varied from 5 to 80 years and raises concerns if mean values can be skewed by the effect of age.

4. The study uses liver function biomarkers as indicators of hepatic injury, but these biomarkers cannot determine causality. Hence it’s important for the authors not to present any identified significance as causality.

5. Demographic information are obtained by self-reported data for behavioural factors such as alcohol and khat use. This reliance introduces the potential for reporting bias, as participants may underreport or inaccurately report their behaviours.

**********

-->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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

PLoS One. 2026 Jun 22;21(6):e0352266. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0352266.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


15 May 2026

Point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments

Date: 15th May, 2026.

To: Editorial Board, PlosOne

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-26-09027

Dear Dr. Seth Agyei Domfeh,

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript. The feedback provided by the reviewers was indeed valid and helped us significantly improve the clarity and depth of our work. In response, each e comment given by the reviewers has been carefully considered and incorporated into the revised manuscript. We have made the necessary amendments to ensure that the study accurately reflects the key findings and objectives of the research.

We have implemented the following key updates to the manuscript;

Comprehensive Response to Reviewers’ Comments: As a primary component of this revision, we have addressed each reviewer's query with specific clarifications and supporting data. These updates are reflected in the unmarked manuscript and are highlighted in the “Track Changes” version to ensure full transparency regarding the amendments.

Title Modification: We have refined the title to better align with the study’s primary focus, ensuring it accurately reflects our investigation into both independent determinants and specific interactions.

Statistical Analysis: To provide a deeper understanding of how different variables interact, we have employed multivariable hierarchical logistic regression. This approach allows for a clearer distinction between infectious, metabolic, and lifestyle determinants.

Data Visualization: The results of this hierarchical analysis and the interactions between factors are now illustrated using a forest plot (Figure 2).

New tables: Three new tables have been added to provide a more detailed breakdown of the findings namely: Table 4, a cross-tabulation table showing the distribution of elevated ALT across various socio-demographic, infectious, lifestyle, and metabolic risk factors; Table 5, a table detailing the distribution of AST/ALT ratios among the investigated risk factors; and Table 6 about model summary for hierarchical logistic regression

Additional References: In response to requests for further elaboration, we have incorporated seven additional references to provide a more comprehensive context. These citations are included in the unmarked manuscript and are also highlighted in the “Track Changes” version.

Moreover, we would like to acknowledge the concerns raised by the PlosOne editor regarding the Data Privacy and Ethics. Accordingly, we have removed all potentially identifiable participant data to ensure confidentiality. Furthermore, we have not included the raw interview transcripts in the supporting information to ensure confidentiality. The data provided in the revised supporting information consists only of the de-identified data and blank research questionnaire and laboratory reporting formats used in the study. To this end, the study was conducted under full ethical clearance from Institutional review board of (IRB) of Aklilu Lemma Institute of Pathobiology, Addis Ababa University. We confirm that formal informed consent, participant assent, and parental permission were obtained for all individuals prior to the interviewing process, with strict ethical standards.

Below are our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments.

Reviewer 1:

1. Reviewer’s comment: A substantial proportion of the study population belongs to the 5 to 14 year age group (27.8%), but some behavioral variables such as alcohol consumption and khat chewing are analyzed across the entire cohort. It is unclear whether these behavioral variables were assessed only among adults or among all participants. If minors were included in these analyses, this raises ethical and methodological concerns. Age-adjusted analyses or age-restricted behavioral analyses (e.g., ≥15 years) may be necessary.

Authors’ Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful observation. We acknowledge that behavioral risk factors like alcohol consumption and khat chewing have distinct ethical and exposure profiles in the pediatric population compared to adults, where a high proportion of non-exposed minors could dilute their observed effects. Following international standards like WHO’s 10 year age intervals (to maintain statistical power in large datasets), we categorized groups as 5-14 (pediatric), 15-24 (youth), etc. To address this, we used a logic-based coding approach in the multivariable logistic regression: participants aged 5-14 were coded as '0' (non-exposed) for alcohol and khat, and this group served as the reference category for age as it was also suggested by the reviewer. This effectively partitioned variance (age related differences), isolating the independent effects of these behaviors in eligible older groups while adjusting for other risks (e.g., HBV, S.mansoni, DM) across the full cohort (N=767).

Revisions in the manuscript: We have updated the Results section (Fig. 2), multivariable model descriptions (lines 317-340) to reflect these refined analyses.

2. Reviewer’s comment: ……. whether age-adjusted models were used in the regression analysis.

Authors’ Response: Regarding the regression analysis, we utilized age-adjusted multivariable logistic regression models. Because age was forced into the final multivariable model as an a priori confounder, the reported Adjusted Odds Ratios (AOR) for alcohol and khat use are mathematically calculated while holding the age variable constant.

3. Reviewer’s Comment: The study defines abnormal liver biomarkers using fixed thresholds for ALT and ALP. However, these appear to be adult reference ranges, despite inclusion of children. This is particularly problematic for ALP, which is physiologically elevated in children due to bone growth. Authors should clarify whether Age-specific laboratory reference ranges were applied, or adult reference ranges were used for all participants. Failure to address this could bias estimates of abnormal biomarkers.

Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this. We fully agree that using adult reference ranges for pediatric populations, particularly for ALP, would lead to a significant overestimation of biochemical abnormality. During the data collection and initial analysis, age-specific reference intervals were indeed applied at the laboratory level. For ALP, thresholds were adjusted according to pediatric norms to account for active bone growth (lines 167-169).

Revision in the manuscript: The normal ranges are incorporated in the methods section, laboratory Analysis sub-section (lines 167-169). Besides, the findings are interpreted cautiously in the discussion section (lines 371-381).

4. Reviewer’s comment: The study focuses heavily on abnormal ALT as an indicator of liver disease. However, ALT elevation does not necessarily indicate chronic liver disease and may reflect transient liver injury. Possible causes include Viral hepatitis, Parasitic infection, Metabolic dysfunction, Drug or toxin exposure. Therefore, statements suggesting a ‘huge burden of undiagnosed liver disease’ should be interpreted cautiously.

Authors’ Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s caution regarding the interpretation of ALT. We agree that a single elevated ALT measurement can reflect transient liver injury (acute) rather than established chronic liver disease (CLD).

Revision in the manuscript: This has been addressed in the discussion section (lines 361-362).

5. Reviewer’s comment: The manuscript reports higher ALT levels among participants aged 5 to 14 years, which is unusual and requires deeper exploration.

Authors’ Response: We appreciate the reviewer for noting this atypical finding. We acknowledge that our finding of higher ALT levels in the 5-14 years age group deviates from the usual trends. In large-scale population studies in non-endemic regions, ALT levels typically show a positive correlation with age, largely driven by the accumulation of metabolic risk factors in adulthood as opposed to pediatric reference ranges who have significantly lower ranges than the adult at base line. However, we would like to justify that in the context of Northern Ethiopia, this reverse trend is driven by unique epidemiological landscape of the area where there is early-life burden of Schistosomiasis and immune-active Hepatitis B infections in the pediatric population which can cause elevated ALT/or high viral loads. This explains why our community findings differ from the trends seen or metabolic driven studies.

Revisions in the manuscript: We have revised the discussion to address these discrepancies, as detailed in lines 381-387.

6. Reviewer’s comment: The description of the regression analysis lacks several important details. Although bivariate logistic regression followed by multivariable analysis was conducted, whether key confounders (age and sex) were considered for the adjustments.

Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer for this important request for clarification. We agree that adjusting for fundamental demographic confounders is essential for the validity of the multivariable model. In our analysis, we followed a robust two-step approach to confounding. Initially, potential risk factors with a p-value <0.25 in the bivariate analysis were considered for multivariable analysis. Furthermore, we treated age and sex as a priori confounders to be forced into the final model regardless of their initial significance.

Revisions in the manuscript: We have updated the methods section under Data Analysis section (202-205) and the results section (lines 317-340) to explicitly state that age and sex were included in the multivariable model as fixed covariates to control for potential confounding.

7. Reviewer’s comment: The authors used bivariate logistic regression models with P < 0.25 in the bivariate analysis. Why was p value <0.25 selected? If p< 0.05 is considered, the conclusion will be different?

Authors’ Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s question regarding our selection of the p < 0.25 threshold for multivariable entry. The choice of p < 0.25 is a recognized strategy in purposeful selection of covariates, as recommended by Bursac et.al (2008) and Hosmer and Lemeshow (2000). Using a strict P<.05 cut-off in the bivariate analysis might fails to identify variables that are known to be important confounders or those that become significant only when adjusted for other covariates. By using a broader screening threshold (P<.25), we ensure that we do not prematurely exclude variables that contribute to a more stable and biologically plausible multivariable model.

8. Reviewer’s comment: The reported association between HBV infection and abnormal ALT (aOR ≈ 18) is extremely strong and requires careful interpretation.

Author’s Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this. Although the value of aOR has change a from 18 to 13 (after adjusting for age), we agree that such a large effect size warrants cautious interpretation and we have addressed it thoroughly in our revisions. The high association between HBV and elevated ALT underscores the potency of viral hepatitis as a driver of liver injury in this community. This magnitude is consistent with the natural history of HBV in endemic regions, where early-life infection often leads to prolonged immune-active phases characterized by intense hepatocellular damage and high transaminase levels. While the odds ratio is high, it highlights the urgent need for expanded screening and antiviral intervention to mitigate this profound risk.

Revisions in the manuscript: We have expanded the discussion (lines 395-399) to contextualize this finding against regional HBV epidemiology.

Minor comments (Reviewer 1)

1. The text indicates that most participants were from rural areas, while the table shows 67.5% of urban residence. This inconsistency must be corrected.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this discrepancy. There was a labeling error in the table where the ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ categories were misplaced. This has now been corrected in the revised table to ensure consistency with the text.

2. Albumin is reported as mg/dL, whereas the correct unit is g/dL. This error should be corrected throughout the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for the observation. The units for albumin have been corrected to g/dL throughout the revised manuscript to ensure clinical and scientific accuracy (revisions are shown).

3. Several minor errors are present. For examples, “Sever” → Severe, “Mini.” → Min, “73,5” → 73.5.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the careful proofreading. We have corrected the identified errors and have made a thorough review of the entire manuscript to correct any typographical errors.

Reviewer 2:

1. Reviewer’s comment: The major concern in the study is the single-time measurements of liver function biomarkers. Although the study covers a 5-year period liver function was assessed only at one time point this may capture transient abnormalities rather than chronic liver disease, and lead to misclassification of the liver health status of participants.

Authors’ Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for identifying this discrepancy regarding the study period. We apologize for the confusion caused by the dates provided in the original abstract. To clarify, this research was conducted as part of a PhD study. While the entire project-including laboratory analysis, data entry, statistical processing, and write-up was extended from 2019 to 2024, the actual field data collection and specimen sampling occurred between December 2019 and June 2020. The study was intended to be a community-based cross-sectional study. We also agree that a single-point measurement reflects a snapshot of the population. We have now corrected the dates in the Abstract (line 33) and Methods section (120) to accurately reflect the 6 months data collection period (December 2019-June 2020) to ensure readers understand the cross-sectional nature of the data. It was also indicated as a limitation in the discussion section acknowledging that single-time measurements may capture transient elevations in biomarkers considering the cross-sectional nature of the study.

Revisions in the manuscript: revisions made in the abstract section line 33-34.

2. Reviewer’s Comment: Interpretation of liver health is based on analysis of each biomarker independently (AST/ALT ratios not computed).

Author’s Response: We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of these parameters. In our initial analysis and earlier drafts, we had calculated the AST/ALT ratio (De Ritis ratio). However, we chose to omit these results from the previous version of the manuscript, as we initially felt they might serve as weaker independent indicators of liver injury compared to absolute biomarker values.

Upon re-evaluating the manuscript in light of your comments, we agree that the AST/ALT ratio (AAR) provides critical insights into the pattern of liver injury (distinguishing between alcoholic-hepatocellular with non-alcoholic like patterns) and adds significant value to the clinical interpretation of our findings. We have now incorporated these results into the manuscript. Besides, we have also incorporated additional points on R-value to determine the patterns of liver injury. We are grateful to the reviewer for noting the importance of these parameters, as we believe their inclusion has strengthened the paper.

Revisions in the manuscript: We have included the methods section, determination of patterns of liver injury sub-section, we have indicated the AAR ratio (170-172), and the R value on classification of liver injury patterns (line 173-177). In the results section, we have incorporated the AST/ALT ratio (AAR). Besides, the mean AAR, and category were calculated to indicate the etiologies of liver injury as indicated in lines 280-295, and the R-values to determine the patterns of liver injury (lines 296-315). We have also revised the discussion sections based on the AAR and R-value findings (436-455).

3. Comment: Wide age range. The study population varied from 5 to 80 years and raises concerns if mean values can be skewed by the effect of age.

Author Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting regarding the broad age range i

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0352266.s006.docx (27.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Seth Domfeh, Seth Domfeh

9 Jun 2026

<p>Biomarkers of chronic liver disease and their determinants in northern Ethiopia: Evaluating the synergistic impact of HBV and Schistosoma mansoni and the contribution of metabolic and lifestyle factors to liver injury .

PONE-D-26-09027R1

Dear Dr. Hailu,

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,

Seth Agyei Domfeh, PhD

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 #2: 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->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

**********

-->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

**********

-->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: The authors have sufficiently addressed all concerns initially raised and significantly revised the manuscript to an acceptable level.

**********

-->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

**********

Acceptance letter

Seth Domfeh, Seth Domfeh

PONE-D-26-09027R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Hailu,

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. Seth Agyei Domfeh

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1_File. Excel data showing main findings.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0352266.s001.xlsx (144.1KB, xlsx)
    S2_File. Questionnaire to assess socio-demographic, behavioral, and clinical characteristics.

    (PDF)

    pone.0352266.s002.pdf (143.6KB, pdf)
    S3_File. Laboratory reporting formal for HBV and S. mansoni infections.

    (PDF)

    pone.0352266.s003.pdf (87.5KB, pdf)
    S4_File. Laboratory result reporting format for Biomarkers of Liver function.

    (PDF)

    pone.0352266.s004.pdf (67.8KB, pdf)
    S1_checklist. Inclusivity in global research checklist.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0352266.s005.docx (72KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0352266.s006.docx (27.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES