ArticleJournal of advanced research2026
Development and clinical validation of a novel protein biomarkers-based algorithm for risk prediction and diagnosis of advanced liver fibrosis: a multi-centre study.
Article in Journal of advanced research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Translating Fibrosis to Malignancy: Biomarkers and Therapeutic Opportunities in Liver Fibrosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionType 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity contribute significantly to the elevated risk of liver fibrosis in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). However, there is a lack of reliable and cost-effective non-invasive test (NIT) for detecting liver fibrosis in T2D/obese individuals.
objectivesThis study aimed to develop a simple biomarker-based algorithm for detecting advanced liver fibrosis among T2D/obesity subjects with MASLD and to validate its diagnostic performance in both clinic- and community-based cohorts.
methodsDiagnostic performances of circulating thrombospondin-2 (TSP2), a novel fibrosis marker, and the three individual components of Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) test were evaluated in three independent cohorts. These included a clinic-based derivation cohort (N = 846) and a community-based validation cohort (N = 803), both comprising of T2D patients with vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE)-diagnosed MASLD. Additionally, a clinic-based validation cohort of morbidly-obese patients with biopsy-proven MASLD (N = 223) was included. An algorithm (TaP score) based on TSP2 and procollagen 3 N-terminal peptide (PIIINP), a component of ELF, was constructed from the multivariate logistic regression model and compared with existing NITs, including ELF, fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4) and NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS). The dual-cut-off approach was used to define the rule-in and rule-out cut-offs.
resultsCirculating TSP2 (AUC[95 % CI]:0.844[0.810-0.878]) and PIIINP (AUC[95 % CI]:0.843(0.807-0.875]) showed excellent diagnostic performance and were used to construct the biomarker-based algorithm. The TaP score (AUC[95 % CI]:0.900[0.874-0.925]) significantly outperformed ELF (AUC[95 % CI]:0.809[0.773-0.843]), FIB-4 (AUC[95 % CI]:0.597[0.544-0.647]) and NFS (AUC[95 % CI]:0.585[0.528-0.639]) (all DeLong P < 0.001), showing high specificity (85.16 %), sensitivity (78.62 %), and negative predictive value (NPV) (95.08 %) at the optimal cut-off. This algorithm resulted in fewer patients with indeterminate results compared to ELF. Its diagnostic performance in the two external validation cohorts was comparable to that in the derivation cohort.
conclusionsThe TaP score demonstrated good diagnostic ability with generally better performance compared to ELF, and had the potential to be developed as a novel NIT.
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.