ArticleScientific reports2023
NASHmap: clinical utility of a machine learning model to identify patients at risk of NASH in real-world settings.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multivariate time-series forecasting of liver biomarkers from longitudinal lifestyle data for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis detection.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Physiological foundation modeling for subclinical disease assessment: a prospective pilot.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Harnessing artificial intelligence for the assessment of liver fibrosis and steatosisWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2026Review
- Interpretable Machine Learning Models for Early Detection of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease Using Non-Invasive Routine Clinical and Laboratory Data.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Development of a machine learning model to identify individuals with VCTE-derived at-risk MASH in a Spanish Mediterranean region.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Emerging role of artificial intelligence in gastroenterology and hepatology.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Revolutionizing MASLD: How Artificial Intelligence Is Shaping the Future of Liver Care.Cancers · 2025Review
- Risk of mortality among patients with alcohol-associated hepatitis in the US from 2007 to 2021.Alcohol (Fayetteville, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- A clinical decision support tool for metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis in real-world clinical settings: a mixed-method implementation research study protocol.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2024Article
- Machine learning approaches to enhance diagnosis and staging of patients with MASLD using routinely available clinical information.PloS one · 2024Article
- A data-driven approach to decode metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease.Annals of hepatologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The NASHmap model is a non-invasive tool using 14 variables (features) collected in standard clinical practice to classify patients as probable nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) or non-NASH, and here we have explored its performance and prediction accuracy. The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) NAFLD Adult Database and the Optum Electronic Health Record (EHR) were used for patient data. Model performance metrics were calculated from correct and incorrect classifications for 281 NIDDK (biopsy-confirmed NASH and non-NASH, with and without stratification by type 2 diabetes status) and 1,016 Optum (biopsy-confirmed NASH) patients. NASHmap sensitivity in NIDDK is 81%, with a slightly higher sensitivity in T2DM patients (86%) than non-T2DM patients (77%). NIDDK patients misclassified by NASHmap had mean feature values distinct from correctly predicted patients, particularly for aspartate transaminase (AST; 75.88 U/L true positive vs 34.94 U/L false negative), and alanine transaminase (ALT; 104.09 U/L vs 47.99 U/L). Sensitivity was slightly lower in Optum at 72%. In an undiagnosed Optum cohort at risk for NASH (n = 2.9 M), NASHmap predicted 31% of patients as NASH. This predicted NASH group had AST and ALT mean levels above normal range of 0-35 U/L, and 87% had HbA1C levels > 5.7%. Overall, NASHmap demonstrates good sensitivity in predicting NASH status in both datasets, and NASH patients misclassified as non-NASH by NASHmap have clinical profiles closer to non-NASH patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.