MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3003361050 · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.043

Association Between Fibrosis Stage and Outcomes of Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020· review· en· W3003361050 on OpenAlexafffund
Rebecca J. Taylor, Susan Bayliss, Hannes Hagström, Patrik Nasr, Jörn M. Schattenberg, Masatoshi Ishigami, Hidenori Toyoda, Vincent Wai‐Sun Wong, Noam Peleg, Amir Shlomai, Giada Sebastiani, Yuya Seko, Neeraj Bhala, Zobair M. Younossi, Quentin M. Anstee, Stuart McPherson, Philip N. Newsome

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéMerck Sharp and DohmeSiemensGilead SciencesNovartisMedImmuneMerckGlaxoSmithKlineBirmingham Biomedical Research CentreBristol-Myers SquibbAstraZenecaInventiva PharmaPfizerNovo NordiskNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchFalk FoundationTakeda Pharmaceutical CompanyAbbVieAbbott Laboratories
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineNonalcoholic fatty liver diseaseRelative riskGastroenterologyMeta-analysisCirrhosisFibrosisPopulationProspective cohort studyFatty liverConfidence intervalDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Biopsy-confirmed liver fibrosis is a prognostic factor for patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). We performed a systematic review to quantify the prognostic value of fibrosis stage in patients with NAFLD and the subgroup of patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and to assess the evidence that change in fibrosis stage is a surrogate endpoint. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and trial registry databases through August 2018 for prospective or retrospective cohort studies of liver-related clinical events and outcomes in adults with NAFLD or NASH. We collected data on mortality (all cause and liver related) and morbidity (cirrhosis, liver cancer, and all liver-related events) by stage of fibrosis, determined by biopsy, for patients with NAFLD or NASH. Using fibrosis stage 0 as a reference population, we calculated fibrosis stage-specific relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) values for mortality and morbidities. We performed fixed-effect and random-effect model meta-analyses. Metaregression was used to examine associations among study design (prospective vs retrospective cohort), overall risk of bias (medium or high), and mean duration of follow-up (in years). RESULTS: Our meta-analysis included 13 studies, comprising 4428 patients with NAFLD; 2875 of these were reported to have NASH. Compared with no fibrosis (stage 0), unadjusted risk increased with increasing stage of fibrosis (stage 0 vs 4): all-cause mortality RR, 3.42 (95% CI, 2.63-4.46); liver-related mortality RR, 11.13 (95% CI, 4.15-29.84); liver transplant RR, 5.42 (95% CI, 1.05-27.89); and liver-related events RR, 12.78 (95% CI, 6.85-23.85). The magnitude of RR did not differ significantly after adjustment for confounders, including age or sex in the subgroup of NAFLD patients with NASH. Three studies examined the effects of increasing fibrosis on quality of life had inconsistent findings. CONCLUSIONS: In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found biopsy-confirmed fibrosis to be associated with risk of mortality and liver-related morbidity in patients with NAFLD, with and without adjustment for confounding factors and in patients with reported NASH. Further studies are needed to assess the association between fibrosis stage and patient quality of life and establish that change in liver fibrosis stage is a valid endpoint for use in clinical trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.029
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1,018
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterology→Same topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→