Noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis and portal hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The result of ongoing liver injury - and disease, regardless of cause - is fibrosis, and fibrosis appears to be a critically important result of ongoing injury. Further, in a number of different liver diseases, the presence of fibrosis has prognostic value. Therefore, the assessment of fibrosis is of critical clinical importance. Given the importance of fibrosis, there has been a rapid evolution in the use of noninvasive liver tests. This review highlights a number of the core principles surrounding. RECENT FINDINGS: The use of noninvasive test has progressed rapidly over the last decade and data are rapidly accumulating. New terminology has been adapted by the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) for noninvasive assessment of liver disease and termed 'NILDA' (Non-Invasive Liver Disease Assessment). Blood based such as APRI and or FIB-4 and imaging tests such as liver stiffness measurement (LSM) have moderate to high degrees of accuracy for detection of advanced liver fibrosis (≥ F2) and even higher accuracy for detection of severe fibrosis (F4 or cirrhosis). NILDA are particularly effective at the ends of the liver disease spectrum. For example, a very low LSM (less than 7 kPa) essentially excludes significant fibrosis or portal hypertension, and a very high LSM (> 25 kPa) makes significant fibrosis with portal hypertension (cirrhosis) highly likely. SUMMARY: NILDA are currently front and center in terms of assessment of the severity of liver disease. In all patients with known or suspected liver disease, noninvasive blood tests, including APRI and or FIB-4, should be the initial choice to assess the severity of liver fibrosis and/or portal hypertension. In most patients, these tests should be followed with imaging evaluation. The most commonly available imaging is LSM, which appears to be more accurate in predicting fibrosis severity, and is superior to blood tests in the assessment of portal hypertension. In situations in which there is diagnostic uncertainly, liver biopsy with or without HVPG remains an important consideration.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".