Xingzhi Li
Wei Luo
Ke Chen1,2- 1Beijing Anzhen Nanchong Hospital, Capital Medical University & Nanchong Central Hospital, Nanchong, Sichuan, China
- 2The Second Clinical Medical College of North Sichuan Medical College (University), Nanchong, Sichuan, China
Background: Several studies have explored the effects of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers (BTMs) in adults and the risk of osteoporotic fractures. However, the extent of adverse effects of MASLD on bone health remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of MASLD on bone health in adults.
Methods: We searched PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus for observational studies published from inception to June 2025 that reported MASLD effects on bone health.
Results: This meta-analysis indicated that MASLD was associated with increased femur BMD (WMD: 0.03 g/cm2, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.03, P<0.001), especially in women (WMD: 0.02 g/cm2, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.04, P = 0.002) and overweight people (WMD: 0.04 g/cm2, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.06, P = 0.002). MASLD was also significantly associated with increased osteoporosis/osteoporotic fractures (OR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.13-1.34; P<0.001) and decreased BTMs (CTX: WMD: -0.03 ng/mL, 95% CI: -0.05 to -0.02, P<0.001; OC: WMD: -1.86 ng/mL, 95% CI: -2.69 to -1.03, P<0.001; P1NP: WMD: -4.59 ng/mL, 95% CI: -5.64 to -3.54, P<0.001).
Conclusions: MASLD was significantly associated with increased femur BMD compared to non-MASLD patients, especially in women and overweight individuals. Interestingly, increased risk of OP/osteoporotic fractures and decreased BTMs were significantly associated with MASLD. This may suggest that BMD underestimates the risk of OP/osteoporotic fractures in MASLD patients.
1 Introduction
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) encompasses various liver conditions characterized by fat accumulation without other causes like alcohol or viruses (1). It ranges from simple steatosis to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which involves hepatocyte inflammation, lobular inflammation, and fibrosis, potentially leading to cirrhosis and liver cancer (2). NAFLD imposes a huge health burden that continues to grow globally and in the Asia-Pacific region, affecting about a quarter of the adult population worldwide (3). The diagnosis of NASH requires not only ruling out alcohol, but also histological confirmation of fatty liver disease. The significance of alcohol consumption is often overstated. Recent epidemiological and clinical research indicates the need to distinguish NAFLD from metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) (3).
MASLD highlights the significance of metabolic dysfunction and accommodates various etiological factors, regardless of the presence or absence of alcohol consumption and hepatitis infection. MASLD is characterized by hepatic steatosis and plus at least 1 of 5: (1) BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 (≥ 23 kg/m2 in Asian) or waist circumference > 94 cm in men, > 80 cm in women, or ethnicity adjusted;(2) Fasting serum glucose ≥ 100 mg/dL (≥ 5.6 mmol/L) or 2-hour post-load glucose level ≥ 140 mg/dL (≥ 7.8 mmol/L) or HbA1c ≥ 5.7% or on specific drug treatment;(3) Blood pressure ≥ 130/85 mmHg or specific drug treatment;(4) Plasma triglycerides ≥ 150 mg/dL (≥ 1.70 mmol/L) or specific drug treatment;(5) Plasma HDL cholesterol < 40 mg/dL (< 1.0 mmol/L) for men and < 50 mg/dL (< 1.3 mmol/L) for women or specific drug treatment (4). At the same time, the MASLD framework allows for the exclusion of NAFLD patients who exhibit metabolic dysfunction, thereby enhancing the integration of current knowledge into patient heterogeneity and encouraging the adoption of terminology that more accurately reflects the underlying pathogenesis (5).
Osteoporosis (OP) is a metabolic bone disease characterized by decreased bone mineral density (BMD) and bone quality, as well as impaired bone microstructure, leading to increased bone fragility and fracture risk (6). The pathogenesis of OP is associated with multiple factors, including hormonal changes, calcium and vitamin D deficiency, and increased bone loss due to oxidative stress and osteoclastic bone resorption (7, 8). Low BMD and associated osteoporotic fractures are major health problems that can lead to significant morbidity and mortality (9). Therefore, the identification of therapeutic factors that reduce the risk of OP and improve overall bone health is essential for global public health. Bone turnover markers (BTMs) are biological indicators that reflect the rates of bone formation and resorption, whose levels are indicative of the bone metabolism status. Bone tissue not only provides structural support to the body but also plays a significant role in metabolic diseases (10).
Osteocalcin, a direct indicator of bone formation, regulates energy metabolism. Procollagen Type I n-terminal propeptide (PINP), parathyroid hormone (PTH), and C-terminal cross-linked telopeptide (CTX) are BTMs commonly used in clinical studies and trials (11), and endorsed by both the “International Osteoporosis Foundation” and the “International Federation of Clinical Chemistry”. The detection of serum BTMs offers a clinical method for monitoring bone formation and resorption (12).
However, previous studies on the association between MASLD and BMD have yielded inconsistent results. Some studies indicate that MASLD and its severity are independently correlated with an increased reduction in the values of BMD (13). Lee et al. found that MASLD has different effects depending on the sex of the patient and location of BMD measurement in the patient. BMD at the femoral neck was significantly lower in men with MASLD after adjusting for confounders, while BMD at the lumbar spine was significantly higher in female participants after adjusting for confounders (14). Additionally, other studies have not found any significant association between MASLD and BMD (15). Recent large-scale cross-sectional studies have reported a significant association between MASLD and a self-reported history of osteoporotic fractures in older men, but no such association has been reported in women (16, 17). These findings, similar to those observed in individuals with obesity or type 2 diabetes mellitus, suggest that BMD measurements may underestimate the long-term risk of osteoporotic fractures in patients with MASLD, who frequently present with obesity or diabetes (18).
Therefore, to determine whether this suggestion is correct, we performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at exploring the association of MASLD with the prevalence of BMD, and OP and osteoporotic fractures at different skeletal sites in adults, as well as its potential association with BTMs. Additionally, we also conducted subgroup analyses by race, sex, weight and MASLD diagnosing methods. The elucidation of the potential adverse effects of MASLD on bone health could have significant clinical implications for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of this prevalent skeletal disorder.
2 Methods
2.1 Search strategy
A systematic search was conducted on the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and OVID databases from inception to June 2025. The search strategy is described in supplementary materials.
2.2 Study selection
Study selection criteria were as follows: (1) Studies on the relationships between MASLD and BMD, BTMs or the prevalence or risk of OP and osteoporotic fractures; (2) The included studies were all observational studies, comprising cohort studies, case–control studies and cross-sectional analyses; (3) The relevant indicators that were available included odds ratio (OR), or hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence interval (95%CI), the prevalence of OP, the mean and standard deviation (SD) of BMD or BTMs in MASLD patients and non-MASLD patients; (4) MASLD diagnosed using abdominal ultrasound, liver transient elastography, vibration-controlled transient elastography, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), ultrasonographic Fatty Liver Index (USFLI) and Hepatic Steatosis Index (HSI), liver biopsy, or other markers of MASLD, such as fatty liver index (FLI); (5) Studies whose full text was available; (6) Studies whose age of participants was ≥18 years; (7) The included studies were English literature.
Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) The study was not performed on human subjects; (2) case reports, commentaries, correspondence, reviews, meta-analysis or systematic evaluations or editorials; (3) the full text of the study was unavailable, lacking complete information and data; (4) participants in the study are taking drugs related to bone metabolism, including patients with various kidney diseases who are taking glucocorticoid, recent fractures, or cancer; study participants had thyroid disease, parathyroid disease, rheumatic immune disease, anorexia and other conditions that affect bone density; (5) other cause-specific liver diseases: autoimmune liver disease, hepatitis, the use of drugs such as methotrexate that specifically cause fatty liver disease, and genetic diseases such as Wilson.
2.3 Data extraction and quality assessment
Two authors (WL and XL) independently extracted the usable data from each study into a pre-designed excel table (Supplementary Table S3). When there is a difference between two authors (WL and XL) in the independent data extraction process, the dispute is resolved through third-party arbitration (YP).
The methodological quality of the cohort studies was assessed by authors WL and XL using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) (Tables 1, S1).
Table 1. Characteristics of participants in included studies.
The quality of cross-sectional studies was assessed using 11 checklists recommended by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) (Supplementary Table S2) (19). According to the overall quality of cross-sectional studies, the ratings were moderate to good (4-11) or poor (3- 0).
2.4 Statistical analysis
For each study, the OR and HR values, along with their95%CI, were transformed into their natural logarithms. These logarithmic transformations of the OR and HR values, and their corresponding 95%CIs were subsequently used to assess the association between MASLD and the prevalence of OP and osteoporotic fractures. The mean ± SD values of the BMD and BTMs were calculated to estimate the combined effect using the weighted mean difference (WMD).
Heterogeneity was assessed by the I2 statistic and Cochran’s Q statistic, with I2 > 50% and p<0.01 indicating significant heterogeneity.
Interquartile ranges (IQRs) are used to show where the spread or dispersion of the middle 50% of the data points. For large samples with a normal distribution, the IQR is about 1.35 standard deviations (SDs) wide. However, when distributions are skewed, estimating the SD from IQRs is not feasible. The use of IQRs instead of SD often suggests a skewed distribution. Wan and colleagues developed a size-dependent formula to approximate SD from IQRs (20).
A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of each study by systematically excluding individual studies and assessing their influence on the overall cumulative risk estimates. Egger’s and Begg’s linear regression models were used to assess publication bias. The two-tailed P value was less than 0.05, and the difference was statistically significant. Subgroup analyses were performed based on differences in the BMD values of the experimental group population, MASLD diagnosis method, sex, geographic region and overweight. All collected data were statistically analyzed using the STATA 15.0 software (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).
3 Results
3.1 Study selection, characteristics, and quality assessment
The characteristics of the included observational studies are shown in Table 1, and detailed risk assessment information is provided in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2. All studies were assessed to be of moderate to good quality. The correlation data between MASLD and BMD, BTMs, and OP and osteoporotic fractures in each of the included studies are shown in Supplementary Table S3. In the current systematic review and meta-analysis, the prevalence of OP and osteoporotic fractures was assessed in 16 studies including 2,684,403 participants (13, 16, 17, 21–33). The effect of MASLD on BMD values was assessed in 16 studies including 28839 participants (14, 24, 25, 27, 32, 34–44), and the effect of MASLD on BTMs was assessed in 14 studies including 14,026 participants (32, 35–37, 45–53). The studies were from 8 different countries (China, Korea, USA, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and India). The steps of the literature search program process are summarized in Supplementary Figure S1.
3.2 MASLD and BMD values
Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference in lumbar spine BMD (WMD: 0.002 g/cm2, 95%CI: -0.02 to 0.03, Z = 0.14, P = 0.885; I2 = 98.8%) and hip BMD (WMD:-0.002 g/cm2, 95%CI: -0.04 to 0.03, Z = 0.12, P = 0.906; I2 = 93.6%) between MASLD patients and non-MASLD patients. Remarkably, femoral BMD was significantly higher in MASLD patients than in non-MASLD patients (femoral neck BMD: WMD: 0.03 g/cm2, 95%CI: 0.02 to 0.03, Z = 7.54, P<0.001, I2 = 99.2%; total femur BMD: WMD: 0.09 g/cm2, 95%CI: 0.06 to 0.12, Z = 5.82, P<0.001, I2 = 88.5%; trochanter BMD: WMD: 0.07 g/cm2, 95%CI: 0.06 to 0.08, Z = 19.36, P<0.001, I2 = 29%; intertrochanter BMD: WMD: 0.1 g/cm2, 95%CI: 0.06 to 0.14, Z = 5.11, P<0.001, I2 = 91.1%) [Figure 1].
Figure 1. Forest plot of comparison of BMD values at different skeletal sites between the MASLD and control groups.
Although our study found that among overweight subjects, MASLD patients had higher overall total BMD values than non-MASLD patients (WMD: 0.02 g/cm2, 95%CI: 0.001 to 0.03, Z = 2.07, P = 0.039, I2 = 99.9%) [Supplementary Figure S4(a)], after stratifying BMD values by site, we found that MASLD patients had higher femur BMD values (WMD: 0.04 g/cm2, 95%CI: 0.01 to 0.06, Z = 3.08, P = 0.002, I2 = 100%) [Supplementary Figure S4(b)], compared with non-MASLD patients. Lumbar spine BMD values and hip BMD values did not differ between overweight or normal weight MASLD patients and non-MASLD patients[Supplementary Figure S4(c), S4(d)]. Additionally, we also found higher femoral BMD values in females with MASLD when we stratified by sex (WMD: 0.02 g/cm2, 95%CI: 0.01 to 0.04, Z = 3.1, P = 0.002, I2 = 91.9%) [Supplementary Figure S2(b)]. However, total BMD, lumbar BMD and hip BMD values did not differ significantly between MASLD patients and non-MASLD patients [Supplementary Figures S2(a, c, d)].
Furthermore, total BMD values were higher in MASLD patients than in non-MASLD patients in both Asian (WMD: 0.02g/cm2, 95%CI: 0.005 to 0.029, Z = 2.71, P = 0.007; I2 = 99.7%) [Supplementary Figure S3(a)] and non-Asian populations (WMD: 0.03, 95%CI: 0.03 to 0.04, Z = 7.91, P<0.001; I2 = 99.6%) [Supplementary Figure S3(a)], especially in femur BMD values (Asian: WMD: 0.05 g/cm2, 95%CI: 0.03 to 0.06, Z = 5.91, P<0.001; I2 = 99.8%; non-Asian: WMD: 0.03 g/cm2, 95%CI: 0.02 to 0.04, Z = 6.38, P<0.001; I2 = 99.8%) [Supplementary Figure S3(b)]. Moreover, we found higher lumbar BMD values in the MASLD population than in non-MASLD patients in the non-Asian population (WMD: 0.04 g/cm2, 95%CI: 0.04 to 0.04, Z = 46.18, P<0.001; I2 = 0.00%) [Supplementary Figure S3(d)]. Hip BMD values were not significantly different between MASLD and non-MASLD patients [Supplementary Figure S3(c)]. Differences in the association between MASLD and BMD values were evident in the stratification of the different diagnostic modalities of MASLD (Ultrasonography (USG)(n=8): WMD: 0.01 g/cm2, 95%CI: -0.001 to 0.01, Z = 1.66, P = 0.098, I2 = 99.1%; vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE)(n=5): WMD: 0.07 g/cm2, 95%CI: 0.05 to 0.08, Z = 6.87, P<0.001, I2 = 99.9%; USFLI and HIS (n=1): WMD: 0.03 g/cm2, 95%CI: 0.03 to 0.04, Z = 7.0, P<0.001, I2 = 98.9%; Clinical Diagnostic (n=1): WMD: 0.04 g/cm2, 95%CI: 0.01 to 0.07, Z = 2.5, P = 0.013, I2 = 58.4%; Liver biopsy and histological analyses (n=1): WMD: 0.01 g/cm2, 95%CI: -0.04 to 0.06, Z = 0.46, P = 0.643, I2 = 0.0%; USG and FibroScan (n=1): WMD: 0.02 g/cm2, 95%CI: 0.01 to 0.04, Z = 3.1, P = 0.002, I2 = 15.1%) [Supplementary Figure S5].
Sensitivity analysis was performed by eliminating one study at a time, and the results showed that WMD 0.018 g/cm2 (0.006 to 0.03) had no significant fluctuation [Supplementary Figure S6]. We determined that the P values for Egger’s and Begg’s linear regression were 0.786 and 0.92, respectively [Supplementary Table S4], indicating that there was no significant publication bias.
3.3 MASLD and OP
Our meta-analysis showed that the MASLD group had a higher prevalence of OP and osteoporotic fractures than the non-MASLD group (OR:1.23, 95%CI:1.13 to 1.34, Z = 4.83, P<0.001, I2 = 91.7%) [Figure 2].
Figure 2. Comparison of the prevalence of OP and osteoporotic fractures between the MASLD and non-MASLD groups.
Subgroup analyses were performed based on sex, weight, diagnostic modalities of MASLD and region.
The results also revealed that the prevalence of OP and osteoporotic fractures was higher in both male patients (OR: 1.25, 95%CI: 1.09 to 1.42, Z = 3.23, P = 0.001, I2 = 77.6%) and female patients (OR:1.18, 95%CI:1.03 to 1.35, Z = 2.44, P = 0.015, I2 = 88.2%) of the MASLD groups than that in the subjects of the non-MASLD group [Supplementary Figure S7]. Patients with MASLD had a higher prevalence of OP and osteoporotic fractures than non-MASLD patients in both Asian (OR:1.26, 95%CI: 1.11 to 1.43, Z = 3.58, P<0.001, I2 = 94%) and non-Asian (OR:1.21, 95%CI:1.09 to 1.35, Z = 3.49, P<0.001, I2 = 80.3%) populations [Supplementary Figure S8]. Notably, the prevalence of OP and osteoporotic fractures was higher in the MASLD group than in the non-MASLD group in both overweight (OR:1.16, 95%CI:1.02 to 1.33, Z = 2.21, P = 0.027, I2 = 93.7%) and normal weight (OR: 2.20, 95%CI: 1.56 to 3.1, Z = 4.49, P<0.001, I2 = 0.00%) subgroups [Supplementary Figure S9]. Differences in the prevalence of OP and osteoporotic fractures in the MASLD group were evident in the stratification of the different diagnostic modalities of MASLD (USG (n=7): OR:1.16, 95%CI: 0.86 to 1.58, Z = 0.96, P = 0.336, I2 = 76.6%; ICD (n=3): OR:1.36, 95%CI:1.19 to 1.54, Z = 4.61, P<0.001, I2 = 90.8%; USFLI and HIS (n=1): OR:2.57, 95%CI:1.3 to 5.07, Z = 2.71, P = 0.007, I2 = 53.6%; VCTE (n=2): OR:0.85, 95%CI: 0.6 to 1.2, Z = 0.93, P = 0.354, I2 = 17%; FLI (n=1): OR: 1.18, 95%CI: 0.96 to 1.45, Z = 1.55, P = 0.121, I2 = 99.5%; liver imaging (n=1): OR:0.82, 95%CI: 0.55 to 1.2, Z = 1.02, P = 0.308, I2 = 0.00%) [Supplementary Figure S10].
Sensitivity analysis was performed by eliminating one study at a time and the results showed that OR 1.23 (1.1 to 1.38) had no significant fluctuation (Supplementary Figure S11). We also determined that the P values for Egger’s and Begg’s linear regression were 0.465 and 0.639, respectively (Supplementary Table S5), indicating that there was no significant publication bias.
3.4 MASLD and BTMs
Our meta-analysis found that the CTX (WMD: -0.03 ng/mL, 95%CI: -0.05 to -0.02, Z = 3.93, P<0.001, I2 = 52.7%), OC (WMD: -1.86 ng/mL, 95%CI: -2.69 to -1.03, Z = 4.37, P<0.001, I2 = 52.7%), and PINP (WMD: -4.59 ng/mL, 95%CI: -5.64 to -3.54, Z = 8.57, P<0.001, I2 = 30.6%) levels were significantly lower in MASLD patients than in controls [Figures 3a-c]. There was no significant difference in PTH levels (WMD: -0.03 pmol/L, 95%CI: -0.14 to 0.19, Z = 0.32, P = 0.75, I2 = 27.2%) between the MASLD and control groups [Figure 3d].
Figure 3. Forest plot of comparison of the levels of BTMs between the MASLD and control groups. (a) Forest plot of CTX levels and MASLD. (b) Forest plot of OC levels and MASLD. (c) Forest plot of P1NP levels and MASLD. (d) Forest plot of PTH levels and MASLD.
Sensitivity analysis was performed by eliminating one study at a time, and the results revealed that CTX (WMD: -0.03 ng/mL (-0.06 to -0.01)), OC (WMD: -1.85 ng/mL (-2.8 to -0.78)), PINP (WMD: -4.59 ng/mL (-6.18 to -3.12)) and PTH (WMD: -0.002 pmol/L (-0.4 to 0.3)) levels showed no significant fluctuation [Supplementary Figures S12(a-d)]. We also determined the P values for Egger’s and Begg’s linear regression for CTX, P1NP and PTH levels [Supplementary Tables S6(a, c, d)], which indicated that no significant publication bias was found. Although Egger’s regression analysis on OC levels yielded a P-value of 0.006 [Supplementary Table S6(b)], we promptly performed trim-and-fill analyses and determined that publication bias did not influence our findings, as the P-values of the combined effect sizes remained consistent before and after the analyses. Additionally, we observed no significant differences in heterogeneity or pooled results pre- and post-trim-and-fill analyses, indicating the robustness of our results [Supplementary Figure S13].
4 Discussion
The findings of our Meta-analysis were as follows: (a) lumbar BMD and hip BMD values were not significantly different between MASLD patients and non-MASLD patients, and remarkably, femoral BMD was significantly higher in MASLD patients than in non-MASLD patients, especially in female and overweight populations; (b) the prevalence of OP and osteoporotic fractures was higher in the MASLD group than in the non-MASLD group, which is consistent with subgroup analyses by country, sex, and weight; (c) CTX, OC and PINP levels were significantly lower in MASLD patients than in controls.
Two meta-analyses reported no significant association between MASLD and BMD values (54, 55). The meta-analysis by Su et al. found a significant adverse effect of MASLD on BMD. However, their meta-analysis included only adjusted effect sizes, which may explain the discrepancies between their findings and those of previous studi. In fact, if only the adjusted results were included, the meta-analysis may lead to sample size reduction and bias in the results (56).
Patients with MASLD typically have higher body weight and BMI, which may increase bone load due to metabolic abnormalities and are considered protective factors against BMD decline (14, 34, 35, 47). Indeed, excess body fat mass may exert greater static mechanical stress on bones, promoting cortical bone formation in obese individuals (57). In addition, higher body fat may increase the secretion of various hormones, including estrogen (58), insulin (59), and leptin (60), which may halt bone loss (61). Therefore, the adverse effects of MASLD on BMD may be offset by the positive effects of high BMI (62). Our subgroup analyses revealed that overweight individuals with MASLD had higher femur BMD compared to those without MASLD, supporting the notion that higher BMI may protect BMD. Additionally, lumbar BMD values were significantly higher in non-Asian MASLD patients than in non-MASLD patients, possibly due to the usually higher BMI in European populations compared to Asian populations.
In our previous subgroup analyses focusing on female participants, we observed that the positive correlation between MASLD and femoral BMD was mostly evident in women aged over 50 years. This finding may be attributed to hormonal factors, particularly the role of estrone. Age-related differences could also play a significant role, as aromatase enzymes present in adipose tissue convert androstenedione to estrone or estradiol, which are critical components of estrogen in postmenopausal women (63). Aromatase activity in adipose stromal cells increases with age, being higher in postmenopausal than premenopausal women (64), and may protect against decrease in BMD.
While our study found that MASLD did not increase the risk of low BMD, it did not demonstrate a beneficial effect on bone metabolism. Furthermore, this study solely assessed the relationship between MASLD and BMD values, without considering the potential effects of MASLD on bone quality. Therefore, we cannot ascertain whether MASLD influences bone metabolism through the impairment of bone quality. We thus conducted a further meta-analysis of the effect of MASLD on OP as well as the levels of BTMs, and found that the levels of BTMs (OC, PINP, β-CTX) were significantly lower in MASLD patients than in non-MASLD patients. Furthermore, the prevalence of OP and osteoporotic fractures was significantly higher in MASLD patients than in non-MASLD patients, and the results held true in subgroup analyses by sex, weight, and country.
Dynamic signaling between osteoblasts and osteoclasts drives the balance between bone formation and resorption, thereby maintaining the balance between mineralization and bone structural integrity. An imbalance between bone resorption and bone formation results in bone loss (65). BTMs are released during the processes of bone formation and resorption, and the OC secreted by osteoblasts during bone formation is involved in matrix mineralization and osteoblast differentiation and thus maintains bone formation and normal mineralization. PINP is secreted as a degradation product generated during the formation of type I collagen by osteoblasts, as well as osteoclasts, and β-CTX is a peptide fragment during the degradation of mature type I collagen secreted by osteoclasts, thus PINP and β-CTX are markers of bone formation and resorption (66). Compared to BMD, levels of BTMs can reflect the state of bone metabolism timely and accurately (66). Bone Formation markers have been shown to be important reference markers for the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures (67). Changes in PINP levels during early treatment correlate with changes in lumbar BMD values at 18 months of treatment (68). Additionally, studies have shown that OC activity is greatly increased after treatment of OP (69). More importantly, many studies have shown that the levels of BTMs are associated with low BMD and OP risk in MASLD patients (37, 47, 70, 71).
Metabolic syndrome may play a key role in MASLD and bone metabolism (72). MASLD represents a hepatic manifestation of metabolic syndrome, contributing to diverse glycolipid metabolic disorders and aberrant bone metabolism. A cross-sectional study showed that participants with dysglycemia had a significantly lower TBS. In addition, participants with dysglycemia had significantly lower serum osteocalcin levels (73). Multiple meta-analyses have shown that markers of bone formation and bone resorption are reduced in patients with diabetes. This suggests that diabetes is a state of low bone turnover, which in turn may lead to weaker bones (74, 75). In addition, it may be linked to an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures (76). Some studies have reported that MASLD is associated with an increased risk of self-reported osteoporotic fractures, but not with low BMD values (54, 77). These findings imply that MASLD may exacerbate insulin resistance and trigger the release of proinflammatory cytokines and bone regulatory factors, thereby promoting OP.
In chronic inflammation, proinflammatory cytokines, such as IL-6, IL-1, and TNF, activate osteoclasts, leading to bone resorption. IL-6 and IL-1 directly boost osteoclast function and generation, and indirectly by increasing RANKL production in osteoblasts (78). Increased IL-6 levels during liver injury can promote liver regeneration and may influence bone remodeling in different liver diseases (78).
Reduced IGF-1 levels play a key role in the development of MASLD and OP. In liver fibrosis patients, decreased liver function or liver dysfunction may contribute to OP. Portal shunting and insulin resistance can significantly lower IGF-1 levels, decrease osteoblast activity, and increase bone resorption, thereby disrupting bone balance (79). As IGF-1 and growth hormone levels decrease with age, bone metabolic disorders and OP become more likely, increasing fracture risk (80). IGF-1 may contribute to bone remodeling by activating mTOR-induced osteoblast differentiation, cell migration, and chemotaxis, potentially recruiting mesenchymal stem cells (81). This explains the increased risk of OP and osteoporotic fractures observed in our study, even though MASLD did not increase the risk of low BMD.
Subgroup analysis shows that the risk of OP/osteoporotic fractures in normal-weight MASLD patients (OR: 2.20) is significantly higher than that in the overweight subgroup (OR: 1.16). Although MASLD is often associated with obesity, it is increasingly present in individuals with normal body mass index (BMI) and is sometimes referred to as “Thin MASLD”. It has been estimated that up to 20% of MASLD individuals have lean MASLD individuals (82). Recent studies have reported a higher risk of comorbidities, such as diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease, in lean MASLD patients compared with non-lean MASLD individuals (83–85). As mentioned previously, metabolic disorders, especially diabetes, may contribute to an increased risk of osteoporosis or osteoporotic fractures by affecting bone quality and bone microstructure (73–75). Furthermore, we have also mentioned above that the detrimental effect of MASLD on BMD may be offset by the positive effect of a higher BMI, but in normal-weight MASLD patients, the protective effect of a higher BMI on BMD is lost (62).
This meta-analysis has several limitations that need to be discussed. First, it is important to note that, as with any observational study, correlation does not equal causation. Second, the potential for residual confounding due to unmeasured variables related to BMD values, OP, or levels of BTMs cannot be entirely dismissed. Although the studies included in this analysis were adjusted for a variety of potential confounders, the possibility of residual confounding arising from factors (diet, physical activity, metabolic syndrome, vitamin D status, alcohol consumption, etc.) influencing bone health risk remains. Third, heterogeneity was evident in this meta-analysis, possibly due to differences in MASLD diagnosis, age, sex, weight, and region. Fourth, our meta-analysis included cohort and cross-sectional studies. Larger prospective studies are needed to assess the true impact of MASLD on bone metabolism or the risk of OP and osteoporotic fractures. Finally, in the section evaluating MASLD studies on BTMs, the included studies comprised only Asian populations (China, Korea, India), thus populations missing from other geographies, and studies that were not included limit the generalizability or extent to which the findings of this study can be applied to other situations, populations, or contexts, as there may be differences in the demographics and ethnic characteristics of the study populations, and further studies in multi-geographic populations are needed to evaluate the impact of MASLD on BTMs.
Despite these limitations, our meta-analytic study also has important strengths. First, the outcomes evaluated in this study were more comprehensive than previous meta-analyses, and we not only performed an analysis of the association of MASLD with BMD but also examined the effect of MASLD on the levels of BTMs and the risk of OP and osteoporotic fractures were further assessed. Additionally, on this basis, a number of subgroup analyses were also performed. Second, the present meta-analysis included a large number of participants, so sample size was adequate. Third, by adjusting the combined data for potential confounders, the confounders of the effects of MASLD on the risk of OP and osteoporotic fractures can be minimized, and therefore, conclusions based on this analysis may be valid, providing a basis for future research, and can improve the accuracy of risk assessment. Fourth, although the data showed high heterogeneity, we performed not only a sensitivity analysis but also a publication bias assessment, which further ensured the stability and reliability of the results.
In conclusion, our meta-analysis suggests that while MASLD is not associated with hip BMD and lumbar spine BMD values, it is positively associated with increased femoral BMD value, especially in the overweight and female populations. However, the prevalence of OP and osteoporotic fractures was significantly higher in MASLD than in non-MASLD individuals, regardless of sex, race or being overweight. Additionally, our study also found lower levels of BTMs in MASLD patients. This finding suggests that BMD may underestimate OP and osteoporotic fracture risk in MASLD patients. In addition, further research is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms and develop appropriate and effective interventions. Therefore, patients with MASLD should be regularly monitored for BMD values and levels of BTMs to prevent OP and osteoporotic fractures.
Author contributions
XL: Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Software. WL: Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. KC: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. YP: Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful for the assistance provided by Home for Researchers (www.home-for-researchers.com).
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2025.1717852/full#supplementary-material
References
1. Poudineh M, Mohammadyari F, Parsamanesh N, Jamialahmadi T, Kesharwani P, and Sahebkar A. Cell and gene therapeutic approaches in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Gene. (2025) 956:149466. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2025.149466
2. Wong RJ, Aguilar M, Cheung R, Perumpail RB, Harrison SA, Younossi ZM, et al. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is the second leading etiology of liver disease among adults awaiting liver transplantation in the United States. Gastroenterology. (2015) 148:547–55. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.11.039
3. Lv JJ, Zhang YC, Li XY, Guo H, and Yang CH. The burden of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease among working-age people in the Western Pacific Region, 1990-2019: an age-period-cohort analysis of the Global Burden of Disease study. BMC Public Health. (2024) 24:1852. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-19047-y
4. Chan WK, Chuah KH, Rajaram RB, Lim LL, Ratnasingam J, and Vethakkan SR. Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD): A state-of-the-art review. J Obes Metab Syndr. (2023) 32:197–213. doi: 10.7570/jomes23052
5. Hashim MMA, Khan MAM, Ashraf MU, Mohsin S, Zahoor K, Niazi J, et al. Pathological evolution and internal medicine management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in the era of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). Cureus. (2025) 17:e86963. doi: 10.7759/cureus.86963
6. Reid IR and Billington EO. Drug therapy for osteoporosis in older adults. Lancet. (2022) 399:1080–92. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02646-5
7. Kimball JS, Johnson JP, and Carlson DA. Oxidative stress and osteoporosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. (2021) 103:1451–61. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.20.00989
8. Lu J, Zhang Y, Liang J, Diao J, Liu P, and Zhao H. Role of exosomal microRNAs and their crosstalk with oxidative stress in the pathogenesis of osteoporosis. Oxid Med Cell longev. (2021) 2021:6301433. doi: 10.1155/2021/6301433
9. Cummings SR and Melton LJ. Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet. (2002) 359:1761–7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08657-9
10. Wang L, You X, Zhang L, Zhang C, and Zou W. Mechanical regulation of bone remodeling. Bone Res. (2022) 10:16. doi: 10.1038/s41413-022-00190-4
11. Han Y, You X, Xing W, Zhang Z, and Zou W. Paracrine and endocrine actions of bone-the functions of secretory proteins from osteoblasts, osteocytes, and osteoclasts. Bone Res. (2018) 6:16. doi: 10.1038/s41413-018-0019-6
12. Vasikaran S, Cooper C, Eastell R, Griesmacher A, Morris HA, Trenti T, et al. International Osteoporosis Foundation and International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine position on bone marker standards in osteoporosis. Clin Chem Lab Med. (2011) 49:1271–4. doi: 10.1515/CCLM.2011.602
13. Shen Z, Cen L, Chen X, Pan J, Li Y, Chen W, et al. Increased risk of low bone mineral density in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a cohort study. Eur J Endocrinol. (2020) 182:157–64. doi: 10.1530/EJE-19-0699
14. Lee SH, Yun JM, Kim SH, Seo YG, Min H, Chung E, et al. Association between bone mineral density and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in Korean adults. J Endocrinol Invest. (2016) 39:1329–36. doi: 10.1007/s40618-016-0528-3
15. Kim G, Kim KJ, Rhee Y, and Lim SK. Significant liver fibrosis assessed using liver transient elastography is independently associated with low bone mineral density in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. PloS One. (2017) 12:e0182202. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182202
16. Li M, Xu Y, Xu M, Ma L, Wang T, Liu Y, et al. Association between nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and osteoporotic fracture in middle-aged and elderly Chinese. J Clin Endocr Metab. (2012) 97:2033–8. doi: 10.1210/jc.2011-3010
17. Wang Y, Wen G, Zhou R, Zhong W, Lu S, Hu C, et al. Association of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease with osteoporotic fractures: A cross-sectional retrospective study of chinese individuals. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). (2018) 9:408. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2018.00408
18. Walsh JS and Vilaca T. Obesity, type 2 diabetes and bone in adults. Calcified Tissue Int. (2017) 100:528–35. doi: 10.1007/s00223-016-0229-0
19. Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JS, Zhang C, Li S, Sun F, et al. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med. (2015) 8:2–10. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12141
20. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, and Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. (2014) 14:135. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-135
21. Chen DZ, Xu QM, Wu XX, Cai C, Zhang LJ, Shi KQ, et al. The combined effect of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and metabolic syndrome on osteoporosis in postmenopausal females in eastern China. Int J Endocrinol. (2018) 2018:2314769. doi: 10.1155/2018/2314769
22. Chen HJ, Yang HY, Hsueh KC, Shen CC, Chen RY, Yu HC, et al. Increased risk of osteoporosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A population-based retrospective cohort study. Medicine. (2018) 97:e12835. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012835
23. Sung J, Ryu S, Song YM, and Cheong HK. Relationship between non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and decreased bone mineral density: A retrospective cohort study in korea. J Prev Med Public Health. (2020) 53:342–52. doi: 10.3961/jpmph.20.089
24. Zhai T, Chen Q, Xu J, Jia X, and Xia P. Prevalence and trends in low bone density, osteopenia and osteoporosis in U.S. Adults with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, 2005-2014. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). (2021) 12:825448. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.825448
25. Ciardullo S, Muraca E, Zerbini F, Manzoni G, and Perseghin G. NAFLD and liver fibrosis are not associated with reduced femoral bone mineral density in the general US population. J Clin Endocr Metab. (2021) 106:e2856–65. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgab262
26. Loosen SH, Roderburg C, Demir M, Qvartskhava N, Keitel V, Kostev K, et al. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is associated with an increased incidence of osteoporosis and bone fractures. Z Gastroenterol. (2022) 60:1221–7. doi: 10.1055/a-1482-9236
27. Li H, Luo H, Zhang Y, Liu L, and Lin R. Association of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease and liver stiffness with bone mineral density in american adults. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). (2022) 13:891382. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.891382
28. Wester A and Hagström H. Risk of fractures and subsequent mortality in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A nationwide population-based cohort study. J Intern Med. (2022) 292:492–500. doi: 10.1111/joim.13497
29. Zhang W, Li Y, Li S, Zhou J, Wang K, Li Z, et al. Associations of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease and hepatic fibrosis with bone mineral density and risk of osteopenia/osteoporosis in T2DM patients. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). (2023) 14:1278505. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1278505
30. Zhang G, Zhao Y, Wang S, Gong Q, and Li H. Relationship between nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and bone mineral density in elderly Chinese. J Orthop Surg Res. (2023) 18:679. doi: 10.1186/s13018-023-04168-8
31. Chung GE, Cho EJ, Kim MJ, Yoo JJ, Cho Y, Lee KN, et al. Association between the fatty liver index and the risk of fracture among individuals over the age of 50 years: a nationwide population-based study. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). (2023) 14:1156996. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1156996
32. Goyal A, Kubihal S, Gupta Y, Shalimar, Kandasamy D, Kalaivani M, et al. Bone mass, microarchitecture and turnover among young Indian women with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Endocrine. (2024) 86:790–9. doi: 10.1007/s12020-024-03934-w
33. Yeh HY, Wu HH, Shen HC, Li TH, Yang YY, Lee KC, et al. Optimal body mass index for protecting middle-aged and elderly patients with fatty liver from future fractures. Endocr Connect. (2024) 13. doi: 10.1530/EC-24-0089
34. Moon SS, Lee YS, and Kim SW. Association of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease with low bone mass in postmenopausal women. Endocrine. (2012) 42:423–9. doi: 10.1007/s12020-012-9639-6
35. Cui R, Sheng H, Rui XF, Cheng XY, Sheng CJ, Wang JY, et al. Low bone mineral density in chinese adults with nonalcoholic Fatty liver disease. Int J Endocrinol. (2013) 2013:396545. doi: 10.1155/2013/396545
36. Xia MF, Lin HD, Yan HM, Bian H, Chang XX, Zhang LS, et al. The association of liver fat content and serum alanine aminotransferase with bone mineral density in middle-aged and elderly Chinese men and postmenopausal women. J Transl Med. (2016) 14:11. doi: 10.1186/s12967-016-0766-3
37. Lee DY, Park JK, Hur KY, and Um SH. Association between nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. Climacteric. (2018) 21:498–501. doi: 10.1080/13697137.2018.1481380
38. Umehara T. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease with elevated alanine aminotransferase levels is negatively associated with bone mineral density: Cross-sectional study in U.S. adults. PloS One. (2018) 13:e0197900. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197900
39. Yoon JW, Kim MJ, Chung GE, Yang JI, Yim JY, Kim JJ, et al. Hepatic fibrosis is associated with an increased rate of decline in bone mineral density in men with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatol Int. (2021) 15:1347–55. doi: 10.1007/s12072-021-10254-y
40. Xie R and Liu M. Relationship between non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and degree of hepatic steatosis and bone mineral density. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). (2022) 13:857110. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.857110
41. Du YJ, Liu NN, Zhong X, and Pan TR. Risk factors for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes mellitus and the correlation with bone mineral density at different locations. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. (2022) 15:1925–34. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S364804
42. Liu J, Tang Y, Feng Z, Chen Y, Zhang X, Xia Y, et al. Metabolic associated fatty liver disease and bone mineral density: a cross-sectional study of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2017-2018. Osteoporosis Int. (2023) 34:713–24. doi: 10.1007/s00198-023-06687-w
43. Hansen SG, Wernberg CW, Grønkjær LL, Jacobsen BG, Caterino TD, Krag A, et al. Are nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and bone mineral density associated? - A Cross-Sectional Study Using Liver Biopsy and Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry. JBMR Plus. (2023) 7:e10714. doi: 10.1002/jbm4.10714
44. Pan B, Zhao Y, Chen C, Cai J, Li K, Wang Y, et al. The relationship between advanced liver fibrosis and osteoporosis in type 2 diabetes patients with MAFLD. Endocrine. (2024) 85:206–21. doi: 10.1007/s12020-024-03724-4
45. Liu JJ, Chen YY, Mo ZN, Tian GX, Tan AH, Gao Y, et al. Relationship between serum osteocalcin levels and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in adult males, South China. Int J Mol Sci. (2013) 14:19782–91. doi: 10.3390/ijms141019782
46. Luo YQ, Ma XJ, Hao YP, Pan XP, Xu YT, Xiong Q, et al. Inverse relationship between serum osteocalcin levels and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in postmenopausal Chinese women with normal blood glucose levels. Acta Pharmacol Sin. (2015) 36:1497–502. doi: 10.1038/aps.2015.81
47. Yang HJ, Shim SG, Ma BO, and Kwak JY. Association of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease with bone mineral density and serum osteocalcin levels in Korean men. Eur J gastroen hepat. (2016) 28:338–44. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000535
48. Deng H, Dai Y, Lu H, Li SS, Gao L, and Zhu DL. Analysis of the correlation between non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and bone metabolism indicators in healthy middle-aged men. Eur Rev Med pharmaco. (2018) 22:1457–62. doi: 10.26355/eurrev_201804_14799
49. Fang D, Yin H, Ji X, Sun H, Zhao X, Bi Y, et al. Low levels of osteocalcin, but not CTX or P1NP, are associated with nonalcoholic hepatic steatosis and steatohepatitis. Diabetes Metab. (2023) 49:101397. doi: 10.1016/j.diabet.2022.101397
50. Wang S, Sun W, and Zhou X. Bone metabolism discrepancy in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with and without non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. J Clin densitom. (2022) 25:553–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2022.07.003
51. Fu J, Mu Z, Sun L, Gao X, Hu X, and Xiu S. Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease have lower serum osteocalcin levels compared to individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus and no liver disease: a single-center cross-sectional study. J Endocrinol Invest. (2022) 45:2275–82. doi: 10.1007/s40618-022-01861-z
52. Yu Z, Wu Y, Zhang R, Li Y, Zang S, and Liu J. Increased risk of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis is closely associated with osteoporosis in women but not in men with type 2 diabetes. Endocr Connect. (2022) 11. doi: 10.1530/EC-22-0174
53. Chen C, Zhao Y, Lv X, Li K, Wang Y, Ma D, et al. Association between serum ferritin and bone turnover marker levels in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Postgrad Med. (2024) 136:292–301. doi: 10.1080/00325481.2024.2333718
54. Mantovani A, Dauriz M, Gatti D, Viapiana O, Zoppini G, Lippi G, et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is associated with a history of osteoporotic fractures but not with low bone mineral density. Aliment Pharm therap. (2019) 49:375–88. doi: 10.1111/apt.15087
55. Upala S, Jaruvongvanich V, Wijarnpreecha K, and Sanguankeo A. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Miner Metab. (2017) 35:685–93. doi: 10.1007/s00774-016-0807-2
56. Su YH, Chien KL, Yang SH, Chia WT, Chen JH, and Chen YC. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is associated with decreased bone mineral density in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone miner Res. (2023) 38:1092–103. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.4862
57. Hla MM, Davis JW, Ross PD, Wasnich RD, Yates AJ, Ravn P, et al. A multicenter study of the influence of fat and lean mass on bone mineral content: evidence for differences in their relative influence at major fracture sites. Early Postmenopausal Intervention Cohort (EPIC) Study Group. Am J Clin Nutr. (1996) 64:354–60. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/64.3.345
58. Movérare-Skrtic S, Wu J, Henning P, Gustafsson KL, Sjögren K, Windahl SH, et al. The bone-sparing effects of estrogen and WNT16 are independent of each other. P Natl Acad Sci USA. (2015) 112:14972–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1520408112
59. Haffner SM and Bauer RL. The association of obesity and glucose and insulin concentrations with bone density in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Metabolism. (1993) 42:735–8. doi: 10.1016/0026-0495(93)90241-F
60. Goulding A and Taylor RW. Plasma leptin values in relation to bone mass and density and to dynamic biochemical markers of bone resorption and formation in postmenopausal women. Calcified Tissue Int. (1998) 63:456–8. doi: 10.1007/s002239900557
61. Krishnan A and Muthusami S. Hormonal alterations in PCOS and its influence on bone metabolism. J Endocrinol. (2017) 232:R99–r113. doi: 10.1530/JOE-16-0405
62. De Laet C, Kanis JA, Odén A, Johanson H, Johnell O, Delmas P, et al. Body mass index as a predictor of fracture risk: a meta-analysis. Osteoporosis Int. (2005) 16:1330–8. doi: 10.1007/s00198-005-1863-y
63. Nawata H, Tanaka S, Tanaka S, Takayanagi R, Sakai Y, Yanase T, et al. Aromatase in bone cell: association with osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. J Steroid Biochem. (1995) 53:165–74. doi: 10.1016/0960-0760(95)00031-T
64. Cleland WH, Mendelson CR, and Simpson ER. Effects of aging and obesity on aromatase activity of human adipose cells. J Clin Endocr Metab. (1985) 60:174–7. doi: 10.1210/jcem-60-1-174
65. Song S, Guo Y, Yang Y, and Fu D. Advances in pathogenesis and therapeutic strategies for osteoporosis. Pharmacol therapeut. (2022) 237:108168. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2022.108168
66. Schini M, Vilaca T, Gossiel F, Salam S, and Eastell R. Bone turnover markers: basic biology to clinical applications. Endocr Rev. (2023) 44:417–73. doi: 10.1210/endrev/bnac031
67. Szulc P. Bone turnover: Biology and assessment tools. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. (2018) 32:725–38. doi: 10.1016/j.beem.2018.05.003
68. Eastell R, Mitlak BH, Wang Y, Hu M, Fitzpatrick LA, and Black DM. Bone turnover markers to explain changes in lumbar spine BMD with abaloparatide and teriparatide: results from ACTIVE. Osteoporos Int. (2019) 30:667–73. doi: 10.1007/s00198-018-04819-1
69. Corbi G, Nobile V, Conti V, Cannavo A, Sorrenti V, Medoro A, et al. Equol and resveratrol improve bone turnover biomarkers in postmenopausal women: A clinical trial. Int J Mol Sci. (2023) 24. doi: 10.3390/ijms241512063
70. Barchetta I, Carotti S, Labbadia G, Gentilucci UV, Muda AO, Angelico F, et al. Liver vitamin D receptor, CYP2R1, and CYP27A1 expression: relationship with liver histology and vitamin D3 levels in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis or hepatitis C virus. Hepatology. (2012) 56:2180–7. doi: 10.1002/hep.25930
71. Polyzos SA, Anastasilakis AD, Kountouras J, Makras P, Papatheodorou A, Kokkoris P, et al. Circulating sclerostin and Dickkopf-1 levels in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. J Bone miner Metab. (2016) 34:447–56. doi: 10.1007/s00774-015-0687-x
72. Zhao J, Liu L, Cao YY, Gao X, Targher G, Byrne CD, et al. MAFLD as part of systemic metabolic dysregulation. Hepatol Int. (2024) 18:834–47. doi: 10.1007/s12072-024-10660-y
73. Kubihal S, Gupta Y, Goyal A, Kalaivani M, and Tandon N. Bone microarchitecture, bone mineral density and bone turnover in association with glycemia and insulin action in women with prior gestational diabetes. Clin Endocrinol. (2022) 96:531–8. doi: 10.1111/cen.14641
74. Hygum K, Starup-Linde J, Harsløf T, Vestergaard P, and Langdahl BL. MECHANISMS IN ENDOCRINOLOGY: Diabetes mellitus, a state of low bone turnover - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Endocrinol. (2017) 176:R137–r157. doi: 10.1530/EJE-16-0652
75. Starup-Linde J, Eriksen SA, Lykkeboe S, Handberg A, and Vestergaard P. Biochemical markers of bone turnover in diabetes patients--a meta-analysis, and a methodological study on the effects of glucose on bone markers. Osteoporosis Int. (2014) 25:1697–708. doi: 10.1007/s00198-014-2676-7
76. Wang D, Liu N, Gao Y, Li P, and Tian M. Association between metabolic syndrome and osteoporotic fracture in middle-aged and elderly Chinese peoples. Cell Biochem Biophys. (2014) 70:1297–303. doi: 10.1007/s12013-014-0054-x
77. Pan B, Cai J, Zhao P, Liu J, Fu S, Jing G, et al. Relationship between prevalence and risk of osteoporosis or osteoporotic fracture with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. (2022) 33:2275–86. doi: 10.1007/s00198-022-06459-y
78. Yang YJ and Kim DJ. An overview of the molecular mechanisms contributing to musculoskeletal disorders in chronic liver disease: osteoporosis, sarcopenia, and osteoporotic sarcopenia. Int J Mol Sci. (2021) 22. doi: 10.3390/ijms22052604
79. Yang L and Yang CQ. Liver cirrhosis and secondary osteoporosis. Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. (2021) 29:204–8. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20210208-00078
80. Filip R, Radzki RP, and Bieńko M. Novel insights into the relationship between nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and osteoporosis. Clin Interv Aging. (2018) 13:1879–91. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S170533
81. Xian L, Wu X, Pang L, Lou M, Rosen CJ, Qiu T, et al. Matrix IGF-1 maintains bone mass by activation of mTOR in mesenchymal stem cells. Nat Med. (2012) 18:1095–101. doi: 10.1038/nm.2793
82. Ye Q, Zou B, Yeo YH, Li J, Huang DQ, Wu Y, et al. Global prevalence, incidence, and outcomes of non-obese or lean non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. (2020) 5:739–52. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30077-7
83. Huang S, Bao Y, Zhang N, Niu R, and Tian L. Long-term outcomes in lean and non-lean NAFLD patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endocrine. (2024) 85:134–41. doi: 10.1007/s12020-023-03351-5
84. Wijarnpreecha K, Li F, Lundin SK, Suresh D, Song MW, Tao C, et al. Higher mortality among lean patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease despite fewer metabolic comorbidities. Aliment Pharm therap. (2023) 57:1014–27. doi: 10.1111/apt.17424
Keywords: bone mineral density, bone turnover markers, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, osteoporosis, osteoporotic fractures, systematic review
Citation: Li X, Luo W, Chen K and Peng Y (2026) Association of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease with bone health in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Front. Endocrinol. 16:1717852. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2025.1717852
Received: 02 October 2025; Accepted: 22 December 2025; Revised: 30 November 2025;
Published: 12 January 2026.
Edited by:
Alberto Falchetti, Santa Maria della Misericordia, ItalyReviewed by:
Alpesh Goyal, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, IndiaXiong Pei, Sichuan University, China
Copyright © 2026 Li, Luo, Chen and Peng. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Wei Luo, UmFpbmJvd2x1b3dlaUBob3RtYWlsLmNvbQ==
†These authors have contributed equally to this work