Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39674225›Full record

ArticleThe lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology2025

Development, validation, and prognostic evaluation of LiverPRO for the prediction of significant liver fibrosis in primary care: a prospective cohort study.

Katrine P Lindvig, Katrine H Thorhauge, Johanne K Hansen, Maria Kjærgaard, Camilla D Hansen, Stine Johansen, Ellen Lyngbeck, Mads Israelsen, Peter Andersen, Katrine T Bech and 20 more

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. MAFLD/MASLD: Past, Present, and Future.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Diabetes and obesity reduce FIB-4 accuracy in MASLD referral pathways.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. LiverPRO: a new screening test for fibrosis in steatotic liver disease.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Non-invasive tests for MetALD and alcohol-related liver disease.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2025
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

30 authors.

Katrine P LindvigDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Katrine H ThorhaugeDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Johanne K HansenDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Maria KjærgaardDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Camilla D HansenDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Stine JohansenDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Ellen LyngbeckDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Mads IsraelsenDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark; Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Copenhagen University Hospital-Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Peter AndersenDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Katrine T BechDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Nikolaj TorpDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Helle L SchnefeldDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Sönke DetlefsenDepartment of Pathology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Sören MöllerOpen Patient data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Isabel GrauperaLiver Unit, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain; Centro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (Ciberehd), Barcelona, Spain; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Morten B TrelleDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Odense University Hospital Svendborg, Svendborg, Denmark.
Steen AntonsenDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Odense University Hospital Svendborg, Svendborg, Denmark.
Rebecca HarrisNIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and the University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Line L KårhusCenter for Clinical Research and Prevention, Copenhagen University Hospital-Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Kirsten S BjørnsboCenter for Clinical Research and Prevention, Copenhagen University Hospital-Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Charlotte BrønsSteno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark.
Torben HansenNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Andreas GeierDepartment of Hepatology, University of Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.
Heiner WedemeyerDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Infectious Diseases, and Endocrinology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany; Leberstiftungs-GmbH Deutschland, Hannover, Germany.
Stefan ZeuzemDepartment of Medicine I, Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endocrinology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Jörn M SchattenbergDepartment of Internal Medicine II, Saarland University Medical Center, Homburg, Germany.
Pere GinèsLiver Unit, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain; Centro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (Ciberehd), Barcelona, Spain; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Indra Neil GuhaNIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and the University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Aleksander KragDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. Electronic address: aleksander.krag@rsyd.dk.
Maja ThieleDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinically significant liver fibrosis is associated with future adverse events in patients with steatotic liver disease. We designed a software tool for detection of clinically significant liver fibrosis in primary care.

methodsIn this prospective cohort study, we developed and validated LiverPRO using six independent cohorts from Denmark, Germany, and England that included patients from primary and secondary care with steatotic liver disease related to alcohol or metabolic dysfunction. We used clinically significant fibrosis (histology stage ≥F2) and advanced fibrosis (≥F3) as outcomes for variable selection in the development cohort and built the model with fractional polynomial regression. In all cohorts, we independently validated the tool for prediction of elevated liver stiffness by transient elastography (≥8 kPa and ≥12 kPa) and for the 2-year and 5-year risk of liver-related events. Diagnostic performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), with clinical performance evaluated through sensitivity, specificity, and Harrell's C-statistic for prognostic purposes.

findingsIn the development cohort (n=462), we derived 466 multivariable models consisting of age in combination with three to nine variables from a list of nine blood tests (aspartate aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, gamma-glutamyl transferase, international normalised ratio, albumin, sodium, bilirubin, platelet count, and cholesterol). In the development cohort, LiverPRO diagnosed clinically significant fibrosis with good accuracy (transient elastography ≥8 kPa area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0·86 [95% CI 0·83-0·90]). In the DECIDE validation cohort (n=6468), LiverPRO detected participants with a transient elastography of 8 kPa or higher with good accuracy (AUC 0·80 [95% CI 0·78-0·82]), comparable to enhanced liver fibrosis testing (0·78 [0·75-0·80]) and the LiverRisk score (0·81 [0·79-0·84]), but superior to the Fibrosis-4 index (0·69 [0·66-0·72]) and NAFLD Fibrosis Score (0·74 [0·72-0·77]). Findings were consistent in three other validation cohorts (n=2554), albeit accuracy was slightly lower. Using a rule-out cutoff of less than 25% (indicating no further examinations required), LiverPRO had a rule-out sensitivity of 80·6% (95% CI 76·4-84·3) and a rule-out negative predictive value of 98·0% (95% CI 97·5-98·4) in the DECIDE cohort. Similarly, with a rule-out cutoff of less than 1·3, FIB-4 had a rule-out sensitivity of 53·8% (48·5-58·9) and a rule-out negative predictive value of 95·8% (95·1-96·4). For rule-in thresholds, using a cutoff of more than 65% (indicating referral to a hepatologist required) LiverPRO had a rule-in specificity of 95·5% (95% CI 94·9-96·0) and a rule-in positive predictive value of 33·0% (95% CI 28·5-37·8) in the DECIDE cohort whereas FIB-4, with a rule-in threshold of 2·67, had a rule-in specificity of 98·7% (94·9-96·0) and a rule-in positive predictive value 35·6% (27·0-44·9). Using UK Biobank data, LiverPRO predicted liver-related events with a C-statistic of 0·80 (0·77-0·84) at 2 years.

interpretationLiverPRO reliably identifies clinically significant liver fibrosis and elevated liver stiffness, predicts the risk of liver-related events in primary care, and is adaptable to the availability of different liver blood test analytes. On the basis of these results LiverPRO was certified according to IVDR class b, obtaining European CE approval in 2024.

fundingEU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and Novo Nordisk Foundation.

Indexed as

Elasticity Imaging TechniquesLiver CirrhosisPrimary Health CareAdultAgedAspartate AminotransferasesCohort StudiesDenmarkEnglandFatty LiverFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPlatelet CountAspartate Aminotransferases

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.