MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prevalence, risk factors and causes of discordance in fibrosis staging by transient elastography and liver biopsy

2010· article· en· W2109372634 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueLiver International · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHôpital Saint-LucToronto Liver CentreUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTransient elastographyMedicineNonalcoholic fatty liver diseaseBiopsyInterquartile rangeLiver biopsyInternal medicineFibrosisGastroenterologyBody mass indexRisk factorFatty liverDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by transient elastography (TE) is widely used for the noninvasive assessment of fibrosis. Our objectives were to examine the prevalence, risk factors and causes of discordance between fibrosis estimated by TE and liver biopsy. METHODS: Two hundred and fifty-one patients with hepatitis B, C and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease underwent LSM by TE and liver biopsy. Predictors of discordance (≥2 fibrosis stages) between measures, which occurred in 14% of patients (n=35), were identified by comparing patient, TE and biopsy characteristics of discordant and nondiscordant cases. RESULTS: According to predefined criteria, 40% of discordances were attributed to TE error and 23% to biopsy error; 37% were indeterminate. In multivariate analysis, mild fibrosis (F0-2 vs. F3-4), and higher body mass index (BMI), ALT and LSM variability [assessed by the ratio of the interquartile range to median LSM (IQR/M)] were independently associated with discordance. Discordance was three-fold more common in patients with obesity (28 vs. 9%), ALT ≥60 U/L (20 vs. 7%) and IQR/M ≥0.17 (22 vs. 7%; all P<0.005). Based on these variables, a discordance risk score assigning 1 point to each factor was developed. The prevalence of discordance in patients with 0, 1, 2 and 3 factors were 2, 7, 20, and 55% respectively (P<0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Discordance between liver fibrosis estimated by TE and biopsy occurs in one in seven patients. In assessing the validity of TE results, clinicians must recognize risk factors for discordance and in at-risk patients, consider alternative measures including biomarkers and possibly 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.233 · 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