MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FibroTest and FibroScan for the Prediction of Hepatitis C-Related Fibrosis: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Test Accuracy

2007· review· en· W2072861622 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLiver biopsyCirrhosisReceiver operating characteristicInternal medicineBiopsyHepatitis CGastroenterologyHepatitis C virusFibrosisVirusImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The accurate diagnosis of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related fibrosis is crucial for prognostication and treatment decisions. Due to the limitations of biopsy, noninvasive alternatives including FibroTest and FibroScan have been developed. Our objective was to systematically review studies describing the accuracy of these tests for predicting HCV-related fibrosis. METHODS: Studies comparing FibroTest or FibroScan versus biopsy in HCV patients were identified via an electronic search. Random effects meta-analyses and areas under summary receiver operating characteristics curves (AUC) were examined to characterize test accuracy for significant fibrosis (F2-4) and cirrhosis. Heterogeneity was explored using meta-regression. RESULTS: Twelve studies were identified, 9 for FibroTest (N = 1,679) and 4 for FibroScan (N = 546). In heterogeneous analyses for significant fibrosis, the AUCs for FibroTest and FibroScan were 0.81 (95% CI 0.78-84) and 0.83 (0.03-1.00), respectively. At a threshold of approximately 0.60, the sensitivity and specificity of the FibroTest were 47% (35-59%) and 90% (87-92%). For FibroScan (threshold approximately 8 kPa), corresponding values were 64% (50-76%) and 87% (80-91%), respectively. Methodological quality, the length of liver biopsy specimens, and inclusion of special populations did not explain the observed heterogeneity. However, the diagnostic accuracy of both measures was associated with the prevalence of significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in the study populations. For cirrhosis, the summary AUCs for FibroTest and FibroScan were 0.90 (95% CI not calculable) and 0.95 (0.87-0.99), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: FibroTest and FibroScan have excellent utility for the identification of HCV-related cirrhosis, but lesser accuracy for earlier stages. Refinements are necessary before these tests can replace liver biopsy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it