Loading
Life sciences · Review
Frontiers in Medicine · September 28, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Review.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) exhibits substantial phenotypic heterogeneity, yet pathways centered on body mass index (BMI) and liver non-invasive tests (NITs) do not adequately identify reduced metabolic reserve, functional vulnerability, or the risk of treatment-related muscle loss. This review aims to delineate the conceptual boundaries among sarcopenic obesity (SO), non-obese sarcopenia, and myosteatosis; evaluate their mechanistic, histological, and prognostic relationships with MASLD; compare body-composition assessment tools; and propose a body composition risk characterization framework for future validation. A formal diagnosis of SO should not be based on a mechanical combination of BMI and a single muscle mass threshold, but should concurrently establish excess adiposity, impaired muscle function, and reduced skeletal muscle mass/quantity confirmed by body-composition assessment. Current evidence indicates that low muscle mass, low muscle strength, and myosteatosis are associated with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), liver fibrosis, and adverse outcomes, although observational associations remain influenced by reverse causation, physical activity, visceral adiposity, and disease stage. Compartment-specific apolipoprotein J (ApoJ/clusterin) signaling illustrates liver-to-muscle endocrine communication and context-dependent intrahepatic or remote-organ effects. We propose four muscle phenotypes: phenotype A, preserved muscle function/quantity without myosteatosis; phenotype B, isolated myosteatosis; phenotype C, abnormal muscle function and/or quantity without myosteatosis; and phenotype D, coexisting abnormalities in muscle function/quantity and myosteatosis. Excess adiposity is treated as an independent modifying axis, and phenotypes C or D are considered SO-related only when excess adiposity is independently confirmed and formal SO criteria are fulfilled, thereby avoiding the misclassification of non-obese sarcopenia as SO. The model is intended for validation in a multicenter prospective biopsy cohort using centrally reviewed, blinded liver histology as the reference for MASH and fibrosis, with its incremental value assessed beyond the fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), the enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) test, or magnetic resonance elastography (MRE). Body-composition assessment should complement rather than replace liver NITs, and the four-phenotype classification, selective clinical pathway, and dual liver–muscle endpoint framework remain conceptual, hypothesis-generating tools that require histological, longitudinal-outcome, and clinical-utility validation.