Considerations and clinical utility of referral pathways for early detection of liver disease in at-risk populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease is the most prevalent chronic liver condition, affecting over one-third of the global population, with cirrhosis present in up to 3.3% of cases. Early detection of advanced liver disease in at-risk populations can enable timely intervention, prevent progression, and reduce complications. This review focuses on the current recommendations for early detection of advanced liver disease, evaluates the evidence for the performance of non-invasive tests in the target population for screening, and examines the multifaceted burden of screening, including economic implications and psychological impacts. Additionally, we discuss future directions, such as integrating liver health into a multidisciplinary care framework. Current guidelines recommend case-finding, targeting individuals with type 2 diabetes, metabolically complicated obesity, or persistent elevated liver enzymes. The Fibrosis-4 index is widely endorsed as a first-line non-invasive test, yet the diagnostic performance in primary care settings seems suboptimal, particularly for pre-cirrhotic disease. Sequential strategies incorporating novel non-invasive tests may improve accuracy and cost-effectiveness. Confirmation typically involves vibration-controlled transient elastography. Key challenges include a large eligible population, uncertainties in optimal screening intervals, patient adherence to follow-up, and limited real-world cost-effectiveness data. Integrating liver health assessment into cardiometabolic care pathways, reflex testing, telehealth, and patient education may enhance uptake. While challenges remain, early detection of advanced liver disease is already likely cost-effective. Ongoing advances in screening pathways and treatment options are expected to further strengthen the case for widespread implementation.
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 | 0.021 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".