SynthesisBMC medicine2024
Comparison of models to predict incident chronic liver disease: a systematic review and external validation in Chinese adults.
Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a risk model for non-fatty chronic liver disease in middle-aged and older adults with metabolic syndrome.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- External validation of three risk prediction models for deep vein thrombosis in patients with acute stroke: a single-center cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Prediction of major liver-related events in the population using prognostic models.Gastroenterology report · 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
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRisk prediction models can identify individuals at high risk of chronic liver disease (CLD), but there is limited evidence on the performance of various models in diverse populations. We aimed to systematically review CLD prediction models, meta-analyze their performance, and externally validate them in 0.5 million Chinese adults in the China Kadoorie Biobank (CKB).
methodsModels were identified through a systematic review and categorized by the target population and outcomes (hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC] and CLD). The performance of models to predict 10-year risk of CLD was assessed by discrimination (C-index) and calibration (observed vs predicted probabilies).
resultsThe systematic review identified 57 articles and 114 models (28.4% undergone external validation), including 13 eligible for validation in CKB. Models with high discrimination (C-index ≥ 0.70) in CKB were as follows: (1) general population: Li-2018 and Wen 1-2012 for HCC, CLivD score (non-lab and lab) and dAAR for CLD; (2) hepatitis B virus (HBV) infected individuals: Cao-2021 for HCC and CAP-B for CLD. In CKB, all models tended to overestimate the risk (O:E ratio 0.55-0.94). In meta-analysis, we further identified models with high discrimination: (1) general population (C-index ≥ 0.70): Sinn-2020, Wen 2-2012, and Wen 3-2012 for HCC, and FIB-4 and Forns for CLD; (2) HBV infected individuals (C-index ≥ 0.80): RWS-HCC and REACH-B IIa for HCC and GAG-HCC for HCC and CLD.
conclusionsSeveral models showed good discrimination and calibration in external validation, indicating their potential feasibility for risk stratification in population-based screening programs for CLD in Chinese adults.
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.