Skip to the main content

Liver, kidney and digestion

Cholineand Hepatic Fat Fraction

Both sources here measured lower hepatic Fat Fraction.

How sure anyone can be

Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

Any estimate here is very uncertain.

The most certain of the two findings here; each record carries its own.

The numbers reported

No number has been put on this yet. Two sources recorded only which way the numbers went — for now, that is all we have here.

Two sources, newest first

What we read is the published abstract, not the full paper, so a blank below may still be printed in the paper itself. A fixed rule worked this out from the source’s own fields. Nobody checked this rating by hand.

  • Randomised trial, 2025

    Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

    The impact of choline supplementation on oxidative stress and clinical outcomes among patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a randomized controlled study.

    Ther Adv Chronic Dis. 2025;16:20406223251358659. doi:10.1177/20406223251358659. PMID:40838115.

    Number reported
    Not in the abstract
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    dB/m controlled attenuation parameter at 12 weeks (endpoint values reported per group, no between-group estimate published)
    Who was studied
    Adult with NAFLD
    Compared with
    conventional management (no placebo)
    Amount taken
    2,400 mg/d phosphatidylcholine
    For how long
    84 days
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 3 steps down: risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Indirectness brought it down to Lowthe outcome measured is a proxy for the target outcomeReported in the abstract
    4. Imprecision brought it down to Very lowthe abstract reports no confidence interval for the estimateNot in the abstract
    5. Ends at Very low3 steps down.
    Inconsistency
    One study, so there was nothing to disagree

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI review could not confirm it — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and at least one check failed. The batch record names the check and quotes the sentence that caused the doubt. No person read it.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

  • Randomised trial, 2001

    Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

    Choline deficiency causes reversible hepatic abnormalities in patients receiving parenteral nutrition: proof of a human choline requirement: a placebo-controlled trial.

    JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2001;25(5):260-8. doi:10.1177/0148607101025005260. PMID:11531217.

    Number reported
    Not in the abstract
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    Hounsfield unit change in liver attenuation at 4 weeks (13.3 HU choline vs 5.8 HU placebo; higher HU = less fat)
    Who was studied
    Adult on long term parenteral nutrition
    Compared with
    usual total parenteral nutrition
    Amount taken
    2,000 mg/d choline chloride added to TPN
    For how long
    28 days
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 3 steps down: risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Indirectness brought it down to Lowthe outcome measured is a proxy for the target outcomeReported in the abstract
    4. Imprecision brought it down to Very lowthe abstract reports no confidence interval for the estimateNot in the abstract
    5. Ends at Very low3 steps down.
    Inconsistency
    One study, so there was nothing to disagree

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI review could not confirm it — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and at least one check failed. The batch record names the check and quotes the sentence that caused the doubt. No person read it.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • None gives a number at all, only which way it went.
  • Two give no likely range, so how precise those numbers are is unknown.
  • Two do not say how many people took part.

Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.

Still to read for Choline

One of the six things on our list for Choline has no reading here yet:

  • Heart rate variability (SDNN)

Still to read means nobody here has got to it, not that it was tried and did nothing or that no research exists. A pairing on no list is not a gap: we never set out to read it.

Read next

This is a library, not advice. No recommendation, no dose, no diagnosis, no ranking. We never ask about your symptoms, and nothing here is tailored to you.