Noninvasive Methods, including Transient Elastography, for the Detection of Liver Disease in Adults with Cystic Fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liver disease is the third leading cause of mortality in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). However, detection of CF-associated liver disease (CFLD) is challenging. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of noninvasive methods for the detection of CFLD with a focus on transient elastography (TE). METHODS: Patients at the Adult CF Clinic of Calgary and Southern Alberta (n=127) underwent liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by TE using the FibroScan (FS, Ecosens, France) M probe; aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index (APRI) and FibroTest (FT) scores were also calculated. The diagnostic performance of these tools for the detection of CFLD (defined as two or more the following criteria: abnormal liver biochemistry, hepatomegaly or sonographic abnormalities other than steatosis) were compared using the area under ROC curves. RESULTS: Forty-seven percent of the cohort was male. The median age was 27 years (interquartile range [IQR] 22 to 37 years) and body mass index 21 kg⁄m(2) (IQR 19 kg⁄m(2) to 23 kg⁄m(2)); 25% of patients were on ursodeoxycholic acid and 12% had undergone lung transplantation. The prevalence of CFLD was 14% (n=18). FS was successful in all patients; one (0.8%) patient had poorly reliable results (IQR⁄M >30% and LSM ≥7.1 kPa). Compared with patients without CFLD (n=109), individuals with CFLD had higher median LSM according to FS (3.9 kPa [IQR 3.4 to 4.9 kPa] versus 6.4 kPa [IQR 4.4 to 8.0 kPa]), APRI (0.24 [IQR 0.17 to 0.31] versus 0.50 [IQR 0.22 to 1.18]) and FT scores (0.08 [IQR 0.05 to 1.5] versus 0.18 [IQR 0.11 to 0.35]; all P<0.05). Area under ROC curve for FS, APRI and FT for the detection of CFLD were 0.78 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92), 0.72 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.87) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.90) (P not significant). At a threshold of >5.2 kPa, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of LSM according to FS for detecting CFLD were 67%, 83%, 40% and 94%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: FS, APRI and FT were useful noninvasive methods for detecting CFLD in adults.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".