Skip to main content
. 2020 Jun 10;40(10):2553–2567. doi: 10.1111/liv.14519

Table 1.

Characteristics of the study population

Feature NL (n = 18) NAFL (n = 18) NASH (n = 15)
Age (years) 48.2 ± 12.9 54.3 ± 14.9 47.4 ± 11.7
Body mass index (kg/m2) 27.1 ± 4.2 29.9 ± 4* 29.4 ± 2.7
Glucose (mg/dL) 91.4 ± 11.1 96.1 ± 9.6 98.6 ± 15.6
Insulin (µU/L) 7.6 ± 6.6 9.6 ± 4.1* 11.5 ± 5.3*
HOMA‐IR 1.7 ± 0.9 2.3 ± 1.1* 2.8 ± 1.4*
Triglycerides (mg/dL) 110 ± 38.8 135.3 ± 39.8* 138.9 ± 40.4*
HDL‐cholesterol (mg/dL) 48.3 ± 10.8 49.5 ± 8.9 46.3 ± 8.9
ALT (IU/L) 17.2 ± 5.9 24.6 ± 9.3** 42.8 ± 18.6***
AST (IU/L) 17.3 ± 3.8 20.3 ± 5.1* 27 ± 11.9***
GGT (IU/L) 26.2 ± 16.6 39.4 ± 29.6* 52.6 ± 35.2***
Steatosis (%)
Grade 0 100%
Grade 1 66.6%
Grade 2 33.3% 50%
Grade 3 50%
Lobular inflammation (%)
Grade 0 100% 100%
Grade 1 80%
Grade 2 10%
Grade 3 10%
Ballooning (%)
Grade 0 100% 100%
Grade 1 70%
Grade 2 30%
Grade 3
Fibrosis (%)
Stage 0 100% 100% 30%
Stage 1 70%
Stage 2
Stage 3

Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or as number of cases (%). Study population: Normal liver (NL) individuals (n = 18), NAFL patients (n = 18) and NASH patients (n = 15). HOMA‐IR, homeostatic model assessment‐insulin resistance; HDL, high‐density lipoprotein; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; GGT, gamma‐glutamyltransferase. *P < .05, **P < .01 and ***P < .005, NAFL or NASH vs NL.