ArticleJHEP reports : innovation in hepatology2025
MELD 3.i: A Bayesian framework for updating the model for end-stage liver disease score.
Article in JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- MELD 3.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2026Article
- The ethics of blood stewardship and quantitative futility assessments to predict certain death in neurotrauma patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on byMELD 3.2026
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background & Aims: The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score has been central to liver transplant (LT) allocation since 2002, with iterative updates culminating in MELD 3.0. However, given temporal changes and variations in liver disease epidemiology across allocation systems that utilize MELD, continuous refinements are essential to ensure its optimal performance across diverse patient populations and transplant frameworks. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all US adult LT candidates listed between July 13, 2023 to June 30, 2024. Candidates from the first two-thirds of listing dates formed the training set, while the last third comprised the validation set. We applied a Bayesian proportional hazards model, using MELD 3.0 as informative priors to generate posterior coefficient distributions. The resulting model, MELD 3.1, represents the first iteration within the MELD 3.i framework. Model performance was assessed using concordance (C-) statistics, and reclassification analyses evaluated patient redistribution and mortality risk across MELD tiers. Results: The cohort included 13,764 candidates (41.1% female). MELD 3.1 assigned a higher coefficient for female sex and a lower coefficient for creatinine, and showed improved C-statistics for 90-day waitlist mortality in the validation set (0.7195 Conclusion: Our findings provide proof-of-concept for the MELD updating framework (MELD 3.i) as a sustainable and adaptive approach for periodically refining MELD using contemporary data and Bayesian methods. This iterative process enhances predictive accuracy, ensuring MELD remains responsive to evolving demographics and clinical practices in the US and other allocation systems. Impact and implications: We present MELD 3.i, a Bayesian framework for ongoing refinement of the MELD score, with MELD 3.1 as its first iteration. The findings demonstrate improved predictive accuracy for 90-day waitlist mortality compared to the original MELD 3.0, particularly for women. These results are important for clinicians, transplant centers, and policymakers aiming to optimize organ allocation while addressing persistent sex disparities. By enabling adaptive refinements within an existing model structure, this approach has the potential to offer a practical method to align liver transplant prioritization with evolving patient demographics and varying practices across nations and regions.
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.