MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361279828 · doi:10.1097/hep.0000000000000364

Machine learning algorithm improves the detection of NASH (NAS-based) and at-risk NASH: A development and validation study

2023· article· en· W4361279828 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jenny Lee, Max Westphal, Yasaman Vali, Jérôme Boursier, Salvatorre Petta, Rachel Ostroff, Leigh Alexander, Yu Chen, Céline Fournier, Andreas Geier, Sven Francque, Kristy Wonders, Dina Tiniakos, Pierre Bédossa, Mike Allison, George Papatheodoridis, Helena Cortez‐Pinto, Raluca Pais, Jean‐François Dufour, Diana Julie Leeming, Stephen Harrison, Jeremy Cobbold, Adriaan G. Holleboom, Hannele Yki‐Järvinen, Javier Crespo, Mattias Ekstedt, Guruprasad P. Aithal, Elisabetta Bugianesi, Manuel Romero‐Gómez, Richard Torstenson, M.A. Karsdal, Carla Yunis, Jörn M. Schattenberg, Detlef Schuppan, Vlad Ratziu, Clifford A. Brass, Kevin L. Duffin, Aeilko H. Zwinderman, Michael Pavlides, Quentin M. Anstee, Patrick M. Bossuyt

Bibliographic record

VenueHepatology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVlaamse regeringAmgenSiemens HealthineersNewcastle UniversityNovo Nordisk FondenSanofiAlberta Innovates Bio SolutionsAstellas PharmaEisaiIpsenFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekNovo NordiskDr. Falk PharmaNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBoston PharmaceuticalsPfizerKowa CompanyInventiva PharmaEuropean CommissionEuropean Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and AssociationsMedpaceIntercept PharmaceuticalsDrugs for Neglected Diseases initiativeGilead SciencesAstraZeneca
KeywordsSteatohepatitisBoosting (machine learning)Nash equilibriumGradient boostingArtificial intelligenceMedicineSteatosisComputer scienceMachine learningAlgorithmFatty liverMathematicsInternal medicineMathematical optimizationDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Detecting NASH remains challenging, while at-risk NASH (steatohepatitis and F≥ 2) tends to progress and is of interest for drug development and clinical application. We developed prediction models by supervised machine learning techniques, with clinical data and biomarkers to stage and grade patients with NAFLD. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Learning data were collected in the Liver Investigation: Testing Marker Utility in Steatohepatitis metacohort (966 biopsy-proven NAFLD adults), staged and graded according to NASH CRN. Conditions of interest were the clinical trial definition of NASH (NAS ≥ 4;53%), at-risk NASH (NASH with F ≥ 2;35%), significant (F ≥ 2;47%), and advanced fibrosis (F ≥ 3;28%). Thirty-five predictors were included. Missing data were handled by multiple imputations. Data were randomly split into training/validation (75/25) sets. A gradient boosting machine was applied to develop 2 models for each condition: clinical versus extended (clinical and biomarkers). Two variants of the NASH and at-risk NASH models were constructed: direct and composite models.Clinical gradient boosting machine models for steatosis/inflammation/ballooning had AUCs of 0.94/0.79/0.72. There were no improvements when biomarkers were included. The direct NASH model produced AUCs (clinical/extended) of 0.61/0.65. The composite NASH model performed significantly better (0.71) for both variants. The composite at-risk NASH model had an AUC of 0.83 (clinical and extended), an improvement over the direct model. Significant fibrosis models had AUCs (clinical/extended) of 0.76/0.78. The extended advanced fibrosis model (0.86) performed significantly better than the clinical version (0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Detection of NASH and at-risk NASH can be improved by constructing independent machine learning models for each component, using only clinical predictors. Adding biomarkers only improved the accuracy of fibrosis.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations34
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHepatologySame topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207