MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2031201928 · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2011.10.007

Discordance in fibrosis staging between liver biopsy and transient elastography using the FibroScan XL probe

2011· article· en· W2031201928 sur OpenAlexafffund
Robert P. Myers, Gilles Pomier–Layrargues, Richard Kirsch, Aaron Pollett, Melanie Beaton, Mark Levstik, Andrés Duarte‐Rojo, David Wong, Pam Crotty, Magdy Elkashab

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Hepatology · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensToronto Western HospitalWestern UniversityMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of CalgaryCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalToronto Liver CentreHôpital Saint-LucUniversité de Montréal
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésMedicineTransient elastographyNonalcoholic fatty liver diseaseInterquartile rangeInternal medicineLiver biopsyBiopsyGastroenterologyOdds ratioBody mass indexConfidence intervalFibrosisFatty liverDisease

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background & Aims The FibroScan XL probe facilitates liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by transient elastography (TE) in obese patients, yet factors affecting its accuracy have not been described. Our objectives were to examine the prevalence, risk factors, and causes of discordance between fibrosis estimated by the FibroScan XL probe and biopsy. Methods Two hundred and ten patients with chronic liver disease (45% viral hepatitis, 55% nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and a body mass index (BMI) ⩾28 kg/m2) underwent liver biopsy and TE with the FibroScan XL probe. Predictors of discordance ⩾2 fibrosis stages between measures, which occurred in 11% of patients (n = 24), were identified by comparing patient, TE, and biopsy characteristics of discordant and non-discordant cases. Results Fibrosis estimated by the FibroScan XL probe was greater than biopsy in 75% (18/24) of discordant cases. Although biopsy quality was not associated with discordance, discordant cases were less likely to have ⩾10 valid shots (75% vs. 97%; p = 0.001), a success rate ⩾60% (67% vs. 95%; p <0.0005), and an interquartile range over median liver stiffness (IQR/M) <21% (37% vs. 57%; p = 0.07) than non-discordant cases. However, only increased BMI (odds ratio [OR] 1.09 per kg/m2; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.18; p = 0.04) was independently associated with discordance; liver stiffness was of borderline significance (OR 1.73 per log10-transformed value; 95% CI 0.95–3.18; p = 0.08). Discordance was 4- to 5-fold more frequent among patients with severe obesity (BMI ⩾40 kg/m2: 32% vs. 8%) and liver stiffness above the median of 7.0 kPa (20% vs. 4%; both p <0.0005). Conclusions Discordance between liver fibrosis estimated by biopsy and TE using the FibroScan XL probe was infrequent in this obese population. Patients with severe obesity and elevated liver stiffness have the greatest risk of discordance. The FibroScan XL probe facilitates liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by transient elastography (TE) in obese patients, yet factors affecting its accuracy have not been described. Our objectives were to examine the prevalence, risk factors, and causes of discordance between fibrosis estimated by the FibroScan XL probe and biopsy. Two hundred and ten patients with chronic liver disease (45% viral hepatitis, 55% nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and a body mass index (BMI) ⩾28 kg/m2) underwent liver biopsy and TE with the FibroScan XL probe. Predictors of discordance ⩾2 fibrosis stages between measures, which occurred in 11% of patients (n = 24), were identified by comparing patient, TE, and biopsy characteristics of discordant and non-discordant cases. Fibrosis estimated by the FibroScan XL probe was greater than biopsy in 75% (18/24) of discordant cases. Although biopsy quality was not associated with discordance, discordant cases were less likely to have ⩾10 valid shots (75% vs. 97%; p = 0.001), a success rate ⩾60% (67% vs. 95%; p <0.0005), and an interquartile range over median liver stiffness (IQR/M) <21% (37% vs. 57%; p = 0.07) than non-discordant cases. However, only increased BMI (odds ratio [OR] 1.09 per kg/m2; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.18; p = 0.04) was independently associated with discordance; liver stiffness was of borderline significance (OR 1.73 per log10-transformed value; 95% CI 0.95–3.18; p = 0.08). Discordance was 4- to 5-fold more frequent among patients with severe obesity (BMI ⩾40 kg/m2: 32% vs. 8%) and liver stiffness above the median of 7.0 kPa (20% vs. 4%; both p <0.0005). Discordance between liver fibrosis estimated by biopsy and TE using the FibroScan XL probe was infrequent in this obese population. Patients with severe obesity and elevated liver stiffness have the greatest risk of discordance.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,268

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,047
Tête enseignante GPT0,275
Écart entre enseignants0,228 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations144
Publié2011
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of HepatologyMême sujetLiver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207