“…98,101 With combination of blood tests and/or image evaluations, the scoring systems according to anthropometric and biological parameters, such as fatty liver index (including body mass index [BMI], waist circumference, plasma TG level, and GGT), MAFLD fibrosis score, Fibrosis-4 score (including age, AST, ALT, and platelet count for possible cutoff value of 1.3), BARD score, NAFIC score based on clinical parameters, including hematological examination, such as ALT, AST, albumin, platelet counts, and physical examination, such as age, BMI, and medical history, can be applied for those patients at risk to be associated with FLD. 65,66,98 However, the aforementioned scoring system is easily confounded by liver function test and age, and additionally, the cutoff values are also easily changed based on the different studies, leaving an uncertain diagnosis. 104 Many novel biomarkers (serum cytokeratin-18 [CK-18] fragment as an example) and surrogate scores have been reported to target the following components, such as a presence of severity of NAFLD, a prognostic value, and a predictive value not only to stratify the progression and/or treatment response, but these biomarkers may be of high cost, not popular, and need a validation about their reliability and feasibility, 104,105 contributing to uncertainty of the diagnosing MAFLD.…”