ArticleScientific reports2023
Using AI and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging to assess liver function, comparing the MELIF score with the ALBI score.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning reconstruction improves detection of focal liver lesions in hepatobiliary phase compared to conventional EOB-MRI.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The use of artificial intelligence in stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Monitoring disease progression is particularly important for determining the optimal treatment strategy in patients with liver disease. Especially for patients with diseases that have a reversible course, there is a lack of suitable tools for monitoring liver function. The development and establishment of such tools is very important, especially in view of the expected increase in such diseases in the future. Image-based liver function parameters, such as the T1 relaxometry-based MELIF score, are ideally suited for this purpose. The determination of this new liver function score is fully automated by software developed with AI technology. In this study, the MELIF score is compared with the widely used ALBI score. The ALBI score was used as a benchmark, as it has been shown to better capture the progression of less severe liver disease than the MELD and Child‒Pugh scores. In this study, we retrospectively determined the ALBI and MELIF scores for 150 patients, compared these scores with the corresponding MELD and Child‒Pugh scores (Pearson correlation), and examined the ability of these scores to discriminate between good and impaired liver function (AUC: MELIF 0.8; ALBI 0.77) and to distinguish between patients with and without cirrhosis (AUC: MELIF 0.83, ALBI 0.79). The MELIF score performed more favourably than the ALBI score and may also be suitable for monitoring mild disease progression. Thus, the MELIF score is promising for closing the gap in the available early-stage liver disease monitoring tools (i.e., identification of liver disease at a potentially reversible stage before chronic liver disease develops).
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.