ReviewCritical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences2025
From fructose to the future: liver disease biomarkers and their prognostic value in acute liver failure.
Review in Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Novel Simplified Prognostic Model for 90-day Transplant-free Survival in Patients with Severe Acute Liver Injury/Acute Liver Failure.Journal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2026Article
- Comparison of LDH activity and LDH-M to predict death in patients with acetaminophen-induced acute liver failure.EXCLI journal · 2026Article
- Article
- [Advantages and challenges of auxiliary liver transplantation therapeutic strategies for patients with acute liver failure].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Acute liver failure (ALF) is an uncommon but severe condition with high morbidity and mortality. Advances in supportive care have improved patient outcomes, but liver transplantation remains the only life-saving intervention in many cases. Unfortunately, healthy donor livers are in short supply. In addition, transplant recipients face several potentially fatal risks including organ rejection, biliary and vascular complications, and infection. It is therefore critical to accurately identify patients who need a new liver while sparing those who do not. This also needs to be done quickly, within the first few days of hospital admission, due to the rapid progression of ALF. Prognostic tools, like the Clichy criteria, the King's College Criteria (KCC), the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, the Acute Liver Failure Study Group Prognostic Index (ALFSGPI), and others have been available for this purpose since at least the 1980s and are commonly used today, but their performance is imperfect, leading to many efforts over the last several decades - and especially in recent years - to identify new noninvasive biomarkers. This review begins with a description of the earliest liver function (e.g. the levulose [fructose] test) and liver injury (e.g. alkaline phosphatase [ALP] and alanine aminotransferase [ALT]) tests and continues through the most recent proposed biomarkers, with critical evaluation of the prognostic utility of each using the KCC and MELD as benchmarks for comparison. Overall, there is as-yet no single biomarker that clearly and consistently performs better than the latter tools, though many may modestly improve the performance of the KCC or MELD when used in combination with them. The search for a better, single biomarker is therefore likely to continue.
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.