Milk Thistle (Silybum marianum) Supplementation and Liver Health: A Narrative Review of Recent Evidence by Ori Scott M.Sc. Nutrition, RD.

Abstract

Background: Milk thistle (Silybum marianum) and its principal extract, silymarin, are widely marketed for “liver detoxification,” hepatocyte protection, treatment of fatty liver disease, and prevention or reversal of liver fibrosis. Biological plausibility arises primarily from antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, membrane-stabilizing, and antifibrotic effects demonstrated in experimental models. Whether these effects translate into clinically meaningful liver restoration in humans remains uncertain.

Objective: To critically evaluate recent evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of oral milk thistle/silymarin supplementation for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD; formerly NAFLD), steatohepatitis, liver fibrosis and cirrhosis, end-stage liver disease, hepatocyte recovery/regeneration, and maintenance of liver health in people without established liver disease. Evidence regarding dose and duration is also reviewed.

Methods: A narrative review was conducted using recent, highly reputable sources published from 2021 through August 2026, prioritizing PubMed/MEDLINE-indexed systematic reviews, meta-analyses, umbrella reviews, randomized controlled trial syntheses, major hepatology society guidance, and United States National Institutes of Health resources. Search concepts corresponded to MeSH terminology including Silybum marianum, silymarin, Dietary Supplements, Liver Diseases, Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease/MASLD, Liver Fibrosis, Liver Cirrhosis, liver enzymes, treatment outcome, safety, and dose-response relationship. Older primary trials were not treated as independent contemporary evidence but may be incorporated within systematic reviews published during the prespecified five-year period.

Results: Recent meta-analyses indicate that silymarin supplementation can reduce serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST), particularly in MASLD/NAFLD. A 2022 umbrella review found relatively strong evidence for ALT reduction, while subsequent 2024 and 2025 meta-analyses likewise demonstrated improvements in aminotransferases. However, reduction in liver enzymes is not equivalent to reversal of steatohepatitis, fibrosis, cirrhosis, hepatocyte regeneration, prevention of hepatic decompensation, or improvement in survival. The 2023 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Guidance concluded that silymarin is safe and generally well tolerated but does not provide meaningful histological benefit in NASH and therefore should not be used as a treatment for NASH. The 2024 EASL-EASD-EASO MASLD guideline similarly noted that small randomized trials may show liver-enzyme improvement but have not demonstrated histological improvement. Evidence for treatment of established fibrosis, cirrhosis, or end-stage liver disease is inadequate. No convincing human clinical evidence demonstrates that oral milk thistle regenerates or “restores” damaged hepatocytes. Evidence supporting supplementation for routine maintenance of liver health in healthy individuals is also insufficient. Oral milk thistle is generally well tolerated, although gastrointestinal symptoms, allergic reactions, product-quality variability, contamination, and potential drug interactions are relevant concerns.

Conclusion: Silymarin appears capable of modestly improving biochemical markers of hepatocellular injury, particularly ALT and AST in MASLD, but current evidence does not establish that it reverses steatohepatitis, clinically meaningful fibrosis, cirrhosis, end-stage liver disease, or damaged hepatocytes. No evidence-based therapeutic dose can presently be recommended for these endpoints. Silymarin should not replace established management of liver disease, and its use in advanced liver disease should be discussed with a hepatology clinician.

Keywords: milk thistle; Silybum marianum; silymarin; silibinin; liver; MASLD; NAFLD; MASH; NASH; liver fibrosis; cirrhosis; dietary supplement; hepatoprotection.

1. Introduction

Milk thistle (Silybum marianum) is a botanical whose seed extract contains a group of flavonolignans collectively termed silymarin. Major components include silibinin/silybin, isosilybin, silychristin, and silydianin. Commercial products differ substantially in extraction technique, concentration, formulation, bioavailability, and actual flavonolignan content.

Interest in silymarin in hepatology arises from experimental evidence suggesting antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, membrane-stabilizing, and potentially antifibrotic effects. These mechanisms have generated claims that milk thistle can “regenerate liver cells,” reverse fatty liver, remove fibrosis, or protect a normal liver.

Such claims require careful separation of several distinct outcomes:

1. reduction in ALT or AST;

2. reduction in hepatic fat;

3. improvement in steatohepatitis;

4. histological regression of fibrosis;

5. reversal of cirrhosis;

6. prevention of liver failure or transplantation;

7. improvement in mortality;

8. actual regeneration or restoration of damaged hepatocytes.

These outcomes are not interchangeable.

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) currently concludes that there is insufficient high-quality evidence to reach definite conclusions regarding milk thistle for human health conditions and describes clinical evidence in alcohol-related liver disease, viral hepatitis, fatty liver disease, chemotherapy-associated liver abnormalities, hypoxic injury, and toxin-related injury as conflicting or insufficient.

2. Review Methodology

This review prioritized evidence published between 2021 and August 2026. Eligible evidence consisted predominantly of:

• systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials;

• umbrella reviews of meta-analyses;

• major professional society clinical practice guidance;

• authoritative NIH safety resources;

• recent PubMed-indexed evidence syntheses.

Search terminology was based on the following PubMed/MeSH concepts:

Exposure terms:Silybum marianum, milk thistle, silymarin, silibinin/silybin, Dietary Supplements.

Disease/outcome terms:Liver Diseases; Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease; steatohepatitis; Liver Fibrosis; Liver Cirrhosis; liver failure; liver enzymes; hepatocyte; regeneration; treatment outcome; adverse effects; toxicity; administration and dosage.

Older clinical trials could contribute indirectly when pooled within a systematic review published during the five-year eligibility window, but conclusions were based on the contemporary review or guideline rather than treating the older trial as new evidence.

3. Pharmacologic and Biological Rationale

Silymarin has several experimentally plausible hepatoprotective actions. These include scavenging reactive oxygen species, influencing intracellular glutathione, modulating inflammatory signaling, and potentially interfering with activation of hepatic stellate cells and extracellular-matrix deposition.

A 2024 meta-analysis examining inflammatory and oxidative-stress biomarkers found statistically significant reductions in C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and malondialdehyde following silymarin supplementation, although several other antioxidant outcomes were unchanged. These findings support biological activity but do not establish reversal of liver disease.

This distinction is central: demonstrating antioxidant activity or lower ALT does not demonstrate restoration of previously destroyed liver cells.

4. Overall Effects on Liver Biochemistry

The most reproducible clinical effect of silymarin is a reduction in serum aminotransferases.

A 2024 systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis incorporating 41 randomized controlled trials found significant reductions in ALT, AST, and alkaline phosphatase overall, with an increase in glutathione. Changes in GGT, bilirubin and several other outcomes were not statistically significant. The authors noted potentially greater biochemical effects with longer-duration or higher-dose interventions in some analyses but emphasized the need for additional high-quality trials.

A broader 2025 meta-analysis including 55 randomized studies and 3,545 participants reported significant pooled reductions in AST and ALT but no statistically significant effect on alkaline phosphatase. Importantly, meta-regression did not demonstrate a significant linear relationship between the magnitude of benefit and silymarin dose or duration.

Therefore, the evidence supports the statement:

Silymarin can lower ALT and AST in some populations.

It does not support the stronger statement:

Silymarin has been proven to reverse chronic liver disease.

5. Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease and Fatty Liver

5.1 Evidence from an Umbrella Review

A 2022 umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials evaluated pharmacological and lifestyle interventions for NAFLD. Twenty-seven meta-analyses were included. Silymarin showed a comparatively strong signal for reduction in ALT versus inactive controls, with a standardized mean difference of approximately 0.88 across seven trials involving 518 participants.

The same umbrella review demonstrated strong effects of appropriate dietary and physical-activity interventions on liver fat, emphasizing that improvement of MASLD involves broader metabolic treatment rather than supplementation alone.

5.2 2024 MASLD Meta-analysis

A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis reported significant reductions in:

• ALT: mean difference approximately −17.1 U/L;

• AST: approximately −12.6 U/L;

• triglycerides: approximately −22.6 mg/dL;

and a small increase in HDL cholesterol.

No significant differences were found for GGT, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HOMA-IR, or BMI. Only one included study reported significant improvement in fibrosis, leaving the fibrosis evidence highly uncertain.

5.3 Larger 2024 NAFLD/NASH Meta-analysis

Another 2024 meta-analysis included 26 randomized controlled trials with 2,375 participants. It found improvements in several metabolic measurements and reductions in ALT and AST. The authors also reported improvement in steatosis-related outcomes and pooled histological steatosis measures, but explicitly concluded that these effects require confirmation in further research.

5.4 Interpretation Against Major Guidelines

This is where the distinction between biochemical efficacy and clinically meaningful liver treatment becomes essential.

The 2023 AASLD Practice Guidance states that the effect of silymarin in NASH remains inconclusive. Although phase II trials showed that silymarin was generally safe and well tolerated, it did not improve NASH histology. AASLD therefore specifically advises that silymarin should not be used as treatment for NASH because it does not offer meaningful histological benefit.

The 2024 EASL-EASD-EASO Clinical Practice Guidelines for MASLD reach a similar position: silymarin may improve liver enzymes, but the available small randomized controlled trials did not document histological improvement.

Evidence conclusion for MASLD

Biochemical improvement: probable/moderately supported.Reduction in steatosis: possible.Resolution of MASH/NASH: unproven.Fibrosis reversal: unproven.Prevention of cirrhosis or liver-related events: unproven.

6. Liver Fibrosis

Fibrosis is a particularly important outcome because progression of fibrosis is strongly associated with liver-related morbidity and mortality.

Although experimental models suggest that silymarin could influence stellate-cell activation and fibrogenesis, human clinical evidence is substantially weaker.

The 2024 MASLD meta-analysis found that only one included trial showed significant improvement in fibrosis. This is insufficient to establish an antifibrotic therapeutic effect.

AASLD acknowledges that certain noninvasive fibrosis measurements have shown improvement in some studies, but emphasizes that a true antifibrotic effect remains to be confirmed by histology in larger trials.

Accordingly, the current evidence does not justify describing milk thistle as a clinically established treatment for liver fibrosis.

7. Cirrhosis

A 2023 systematic review examined medicinal plants in cirrhosis. Eleven clinical trials were included, eight of which studied silymarin and collectively involved 613 participants. Some studies reported improvements in AST and ALT; however, results were inconsistent and the review emphasized the limited number and methodological quality of available studies.

Biochemical improvement in a patient with cirrhosis does not necessarily represent regression of cirrhosis.

There is insufficient contemporary high-quality evidence demonstrating that oral milk thistle:

• reverses established cirrhotic architecture;

• lowers portal pressure;

• prevents variceal bleeding;

• prevents ascites;

• prevents hepatic encephalopathy;

• improves MELD score reliably;

• prevents hepatocellular carcinoma;

• prevents transplantation;

• or improves survival.

Therefore, silymarin cannot currently be classified as an evidence-based treatment for cirrhosis.

8. End-Stage Liver Disease

No high-quality recent evidence establishes oral milk thistle as a treatment for decompensated cirrhosis or end-stage liver disease.

This distinction is clinically important. End-stage disease may include ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, variceal hemorrhage, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, jaundice, progressive synthetic dysfunction, and hepatocellular carcinoma risk.

Treatment requires disease-specific management, management of portal hypertension and complications, nutritional therapy, medication optimization, surveillance, and—in appropriate patients—assessment for liver transplantation.

Milk thistle supplementation has not been demonstrated to replace or reproduce any of these interventions.

For this reason, no evidence-based milk-thistle dosage or treatment schedule can presently be recommended for end-stage liver disease.

9. Does Milk Thistle Restore or Regenerate Liver Cells?

Claims regarding “liver-cell regeneration” require particular caution.

The liver possesses substantial endogenous regenerative capacity after certain types of injury. Silymarin has demonstrated cytoprotective, antioxidant, and potentially proliferation-modulating effects in experimental laboratory systems. However, there is currently no adequate human clinical evidence demonstrating that oral milk thistle regenerates destroyed hepatocytes or restores normal hepatic architecture after advanced chronic injury.

Biochemical improvements should not be described as hepatocyte regeneration.

Similarly:

• lower ALT ≠ newly regenerated hepatocytes;

• lower AST ≠ reversal of fibrosis;

• reduced oxidative stress ≠ restored liver architecture;

• improvement in steatosis ≠ cure of advanced liver disease.

The scientifically defensible description is that silymarin has potential hepatoprotective biological actions, while true clinically significant hepatocyte restoration remains unproven in humans.

10. General Liver-Health Maintenance in Healthy Individuals

Evidence is even weaker for prophylactic supplementation in people who have normal liver function and no diagnosed liver disease.

NCCIH states that available evidence is insufficient to permit definite conclusions about milk thistle's effects on human health conditions.

There is no high-quality evidence demonstrating that long-term milk-thistle supplementation in otherwise healthy adults:

• prevents future MASLD;

• prevents alcohol-related liver disease;

• prevents medication-induced liver injury;

• prolongs life;

• prevents cirrhosis;

• reduces cancer incidence;

• or meaningfully “detoxifies” the liver.

Accordingly, a routine preventive dose for “liver maintenance” cannot presently be considered evidence based.

11. Safety

11.1 General Tolerability

Oral milk thistle appears generally well tolerated.

NCCIH identifies gastrointestinal complaints—such as bloating, nausea, and gas—as the most commonly reported adverse effects. Allergic reactions are possible, particularly in people with sensitivity to plants in the Asteraceae family such as ragweed, chrysanthemum, marigold, or daisy. Safety during pregnancy and breastfeeding remains insufficiently characterized.

Although the dedicated LiverTox milk-thistle monograph was last updated in 2020 and therefore falls outside the strict evidence window for this review, more recent LiverTox material continues to emphasize the broader need for caution with herbal and dietary supplements because formulation, contamination, and supplement-associated liver injury can be clinically important issues.

11.2 Supplement Quality

An especially important issue is that a commercial product labeled “milk thistle 500 mg” is not necessarily equivalent to 500 mg of silymarin.

NCCIH reports concerns regarding:

• actual silymarin quantities differing substantially from labels;

• pesticide contamination;

• microbial contamination;

• mycotoxin contamination.

Thus, clinical-trial doses of standardized silymarin cannot automatically be translated into doses of an arbitrary retail “milk thistle” capsule.

11.3 Drug Interactions

Clinically important interactions appear uncommon, but absence of strong evidence is not proof of absence.

Medication review is particularly important in patients taking:

• glucose-lowering medicines;

• anticoagulants or antiplatelet drugs;

• drugs with narrow therapeutic indices;

• chemotherapy;

• immunosuppressive therapy;

• transplant medications;

• multiple medications metabolized through hepatic pathways.

AASLD also emphasizes the broader clinical importance of obtaining a complete herbal and dietary supplement history when evaluating liver abnormalities.

12. Dosage and Treatment Duration

12.1 No Universally Established Therapeutic Dose

There is currently no guideline-endorsed dose of oral milk thistle/silymarin for curing MASLD, reversing fibrosis, treating cirrhosis, regenerating liver cells, treating end-stage liver disease, or maintaining a healthy liver.

This is one of the most important conclusions of the review.

Published studies use heterogeneous:

• preparations;

• silymarin concentrations;

• silybin formulations;

• bioavailability-enhanced products;

• doses;

• dosing frequencies;

• treatment periods.

Therefore, mg of “milk thistle extract” and mg of standardized silymarin should never be assumed to be equivalent.

12.2 Doses Studied in Clinical Research

A 2023 systematic review of randomized studies reported silymarin doses ranging approximately from 140 to 420 mg in many studies examining liver enzymes, though formulations and dosing schedules varied substantially.

A 2025 meta-analysis found that subgroups receiving <400 mg and treatment durations of ≤2 months demonstrated greater ALT/AST reductions than higher-dose or longer-duration groups. However, formal meta-regression found no significant association between dose or treatment duration and the hepatoprotective effect, making it inappropriate to interpret <400 mg as an established optimal therapeutic dose.

Conversely, a 2024 dose-response meta-analysis reported that some biochemical or oxidative-stress effects were more apparent in longer interventions, including those lasting ≥12 weeks.

These apparently conflicting observations illustrate why an evidence-based “best schedule” has not yet been established.

12.3 Scientifically Defensible Dosing Statement

For a research paper, the most accurate conclusion is:

Clinical studies of standardized silymarin have commonly examined daily doses in the several-hundred-milligram range over periods ranging from weeks to months, but substantial heterogeneity in formulation, bioavailability, dose, and treatment duration prevents establishment of an evidence-based therapeutic regimen. No major hepatology guideline currently recommends a specific silymarin dose for MASLD/MASH, fibrosis, cirrhosis, end-stage liver disease, hepatocyte regeneration, or routine liver-health maintenance.

Therefore, the literature does not support prescribing a universal dose or treatment course for these indications.

13. Evidence Summary

Clinical objective	Current evidence for milk thistle/silymarin
Reduce ALT/AST	Supported to a moderate degree, particularly in MASLD
Improve metabolic biomarkers in MASLD	Possible, variable
Reduce hepatic steatosis	Possible but not definitively established
Resolve MASH/NASH histologically	Not established
Reverse liver fibrosis	Insufficient evidence
Reverse cirrhosis	Not established
Treat decompensated/end-stage liver disease	No established efficacy
Restore/regenerate damaged hepatocytes in humans	Not demonstrated
Prevent liver failure or transplantation	Not demonstrated
Reduce liver-related mortality	Not established by current high-quality evidence
Maintain liver health in healthy adults	Insufficient evidence
General oral safety	Generally well tolerated, with quality/interactions requiring attention

14. Clinical Interpretation

Current evidence presents an apparent paradox.

Meta-analyses frequently produce statistically significant improvements in ALT and AST, whereas leading liver-disease guidelines do not recommend silymarin as disease-modifying therapy.

There is no genuine contradiction.

Serum aminotransferases are biomarkers, whereas clinically meaningful endpoints include histological resolution of steatohepatitis, regression of fibrosis, prevention of decompensation, transplantation-free survival, and mortality.

AASLD specifically notes that although silymarin may improve some noninvasive measurements, available randomized trials have not demonstrated meaningful NASH histological benefit.

EASL similarly observes potential improvement in liver enzymes without demonstrated histological improvement.

Thus, evidence supports describing silymarin as a supplement with biochemical hepatoprotective potential, not an established antifibrotic or liver-regenerative therapy.

15. Limitations of the Evidence

Major limitations include heterogeneity of botanical preparations, variable standardization of silymarin content, differences in bioavailability, small sample sizes, short follow-up periods, inconsistent diagnostic criteria, differences in baseline liver disease, frequent use of surrogate outcomes, and relatively few studies with paired liver biopsy or long-term clinical outcomes.

Meta-analyses also pool older primary trials with different methodological standards. Therefore, a recent publication date of a meta-analysis does not mean all underlying randomized trials were performed recently.

Another limitation is that reductions in ALT/AST can occur without regression of fibrosis. Conversely, advanced liver disease may sometimes occur with relatively normal aminotransferase concentrations. Consequently, liver enzyme changes alone are insufficient to determine disease reversal.

16. Conclusion

Milk thistle and its standardized extract silymarin remain biologically interesting hepatoprotective agents, and contemporary meta-analyses provide reasonably consistent evidence that supplementation can reduce ALT and AST, particularly among people with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease.

The evidence becomes substantially weaker when clinically meaningful outcomes are considered.

At present, high-quality human data do not establish that oral milk thistle:

• regenerates damaged liver cells;

• reliably resolves MASH/NASH;

• reverses clinically meaningful hepatic fibrosis;

• reverses established cirrhosis;

• treats end-stage liver disease;

• prevents hepatic decompensation;

• prevents transplantation;

• improves liver-related survival;

• or provides proven benefit when taken routinely by healthy adults solely for “liver maintenance.”

Accordingly, current AASLD guidance states that silymarin should not be used as treatment for NASH because meaningful histological benefit has not been demonstrated. EASL-EASD-EASO guidance similarly recognizes possible improvements in liver enzymes without proven histological improvement.

No universally accepted evidence-based dose or treatment schedule exists for treatment of fatty liver disease, fibrosis, cirrhosis, end-stage liver disease, hepatocyte regeneration, or prophylactic liver maintenance. Trial doses typically fall within the several-hundred-milligram-per-day range of standardized silymarin, but heterogeneity in formulation and bioavailability prevents translation into a universal recommendation.

Thus, the most scientifically accurate conclusion is that silymarin may improve biochemical markers of liver injury but remains unproven as a disease-modifying, antifibrotic, regenerative, or survival-improving therapy.

For patients with known fibrosis, cirrhosis, jaundice, ascites, portal hypertension, hepatic encephalopathy, abnormal synthetic function, or other evidence of advanced liver disease, supplementation should never substitute for hepatology evaluation and evidence-based disease-specific treatment.

References

1. Cho K, et al. The effect of pharmacological treatment and lifestyle modification in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Obesity Reviews. 2022;23. doi:10.1111/obr.13464. PMID: 35582982.

2. Cusi K, Isaacs S, Barb D, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline for the diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in primary care and endocrinology clinical settings: co-sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Endocrine Practice. 2022;28(5):528-562. doi:10.1016/j.eprac.2022.03.010. PMID: 35569886.

3. Fontana RJ, Liou I, Reuben A, et al. AASLD practice guidance on drug, herbal, and dietary supplement-induced liver injury. Hepatology. 2023;77(3):1036-1065. doi:10.1002/hep.32689. PMID: 35899384.

4. Rinella ME, Neuschwander-Tetri BA, Siddiqui MS, et al. AASLD Practice Guidance on the clinical assessment and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology. 2023;77(5):1797-1835. doi:10.1097/HEP.0000000000000323. PMID: 36727674.

5. Li S, Duan F, Li S, Lu B. Administration of silymarin in NAFLD/NASH: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Hepatology. 2024;29(2):101174. doi:10.1016/j.aohep.2023.101174. PMID: 38579127.

6. Mohammadi S, Ashtary-Larky D, Asbaghi O, et al. Effects of silymarin supplementation on liver and kidney functions: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Phytotherapy Research. 2024;38(5):2572-2593. doi:10.1002/ptr.8173. PMID: 38475999.

7. Bahari H, Shahraki Jazinaki M, Rashidmayvan M, et al. The effects of silymarin consumption on inflammation and oxidative stress in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Inflammopharmacology. 2024;32(2):949-963. doi:10.1007/s10787-023-01423-6. PMID: 38372848.

8. Effects of silymarin use on liver enzymes and metabolic factors in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Liver Journal. 2024. doi:10.3138/canlivj-2023-0021. PMID: 38505782.

9. EASL-EASD-EASO. Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD). 2024.

10. The effect of medicinal plants on cirrhosis: a systematic review of clinical trials. 2023. PMID: 37218361.

11. Calderon Martinez E, et al. Impact of silymarin supplements on liver enzyme levels: a systematic review. 2023. PMID: 38021897.

12. Shahsavari K, et al. Are alterations needed in Silybum marianum (silymarin) administration practices? A novel outlook and meta-analysis on randomized trials targeting liver injury. BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies. 2025. doi:10.1186/s12906-025-04886-y. PMID: 40221681.

13. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Milk Thistle: Usefulness and Safety. National Institutes of Health. Current NCCIH evidence summary accessed 2026.

14. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Herbal and Dietary Supplements. LiverTox: Clinical and Research Information on Drug-Induced Liver Injury. Updated July 1, 2025.

Evidence-grade summary

Most defensible finding: silymarin can modestly lower ALT/AST in several liver-disease populations, with the clearest contemporary signal in MASLD.

Promising but uncertain: improvement in hepatic steatosis and selected metabolic or oxidative-stress markers.

Not established: histological reversal of MASH, fibrosis regression, cirrhosis reversal, hepatocyte regeneration, prevention of decompensation, improved transplantation-free survival, or routine prophylactic benefit in healthy individuals.

Clinical recommendation: current evidence does not justify prescribing milk thistle as treatment for MASH/NASH, fibrosis, cirrhosis, end-stage liver disease, or hepatocyte restoration.

Dose recommendation: no evidence-based disease-treatment dose can currently be recommended. Doses used in trials should be reported as studied doses, not as established therapeutic prescriptions.