ArticleClinical and molecular hepatology2024
Comparison of four histological scoring systems for autoimmune hepatitis to improve diagnostic sensitivity.
Article in Clinical and molecular hepatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- High performance deep-learning model for the diagnosis of auto-immune hepatitis based on histological whole slide images.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Autoimmune liver diseases and overlap syndromes in children with inflammatory bowel diseases.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Review
- Review
- Reply to correspondence on "Comparison of four histological scoring systems for autoimmune hepatitis to improve diagnostic sensitivity".Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the histological scoring systems of autoimmune hepatitis: A significant step towards the optimization of clinical diagnosis.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2024Article
- Reply to: "Evaluation of the histological scoring systems of autoimmune hepatitis: A significant step towards the optimization of clinical diagnosis".Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThe histological criteria in the 1999 and 2008 scoring systems proposed by the International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group (IAIHG) have their inherent limitations in diagnosing autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). In this study, we evaluated the histology components of four scoring systems (1. revised original scoring system ["1999 IAIHG"], 2. simplified scoring system ["2008 IAIHG"], 3. modified histologic criteria ["2017 UCSF"], and 4. a new histologic criteria proposed by the International AIH Pathology Group ["2022 IAHPG"]) in AIH patients.
methodsMedical records and liver biopsies were retrospectively reviewed for 68 patients from two independent medical institutions, diagnosed with AIH based on the 1999 IAIHG system between 2006 and 2016. The histological features were reviewed in detail, and the four histological scoring systems were compared.
resultsOut of the 68 patients, 56 (82.4%) patients met the "probable" or "definite" AIH criteria of the 2008 IAIHG system, and the proportion of histologic score 2 (maximum) was 40/68 (58.8%). By applying the 2017 UCSF criteria, the number of histology score 2 increased to 60/68 (88.2%), and "probable" or "definite" AIH cases increased to 61/68 (89.7%). Finally, applying the 2022 IAHPG histology score resulted in the highest number of cases with histologic score 2 (64/68; 94.1%) and with a diagnosis of "probable" or "definite" AIH (62/68; 91.2%).
conclusionThe recently proposed UCSF/IAHPG histological criteria increased the histology score of AIH. Substituting the histology component of the 2008 IAIHG system with the 2022 IAHPG criteria increased the sensitivity for diagnosing AIH (≥"Probable AIH") from 82.4% to 91.2%.
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.