ArticleResearch square2026
Ahead, a Novel Validated Machine Learning Model for Clinical Diagnosis of Alcohol Associated Hepatitis.
Article in Research square, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Current criteria from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) for clinical diagnosis are not based on evidence. We developed a machine-learning model for the clinical diagnosis of AH. Methods and Results: 467 subjects with alcohol associated liver disease (ALD) across seven centers were randomly assigned to training or testing cohorts. Three machine learning algorithms: Random Forest, Gradient Boosting Machine, and XGBoost were derived on the training cohort to identify clinical characteristics associated with histologic AH. Combined Alcohol Hepatitis Ensemble Algorithm Development (AHEAD) model integrating AST, ALT, total serum bilirubin was superior to NIAAA criteria to predict histologic AH in test cohort AUC of 0.695 (0.608-0.782) vs. 0.590 (95% CI 0.49420100330.685) (Bootstrap p = 0.049). Using 50% probability cutoff, AHEAD model was 61.5% specific (107 of 174 non-cases correctly identified) and 63.3% sensitive (19 of 30 cases correctly identified) for AH diagnosis. NIAAA model was 54.6% specific (95 of 174 non-cases correctly identified) and 63.3% sensitive (19 of 30 cases correctly identified). Conclusion: The AHEAD model (https://aihepatology.shinyapps.io/AHEAD/) is more specific than the widely utilized NIAAA criteria for clinical diagnosis of AH. It may be useful in clinical trials by reducing enrolment of subjects without AH.
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.