ArticlePloS one2026
Age-range-matched external validation of standard liver volume equations: Methodological re-evaluation of 13 regression models.
Article in PloS one, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimAccurate estimation of standard liver volume (SLV) is essential in hepatobiliary surgery, particularly in living donor liver transplantation and hepatic resection. Numerous and substantially divergent SLV equations have been proposed, yet it remains unclear which are methodologically valid. Although several comparative and validation studies have been reported, these have typically evaluated equations beyond their original derivation ranges, thereby conflating external validity with extrapolation and ignoring physiologically distinct processes across the lifespan. As a result, a proper external validation of existing SLV equations has not been systematically performed.
methodsThirteen previously proposed SLV formulae were selected for methodologically constrained external validation in individuals without known liver disease (n = 1152). Each equation was evaluated strictly within its original derivation age range using age-range-matched cohorts. Agreement between estimated SLV and computed tomography-measured total liver volume (TLV) was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Model performance was further examined in older adults and across subgroups defined by sex, obesity, and emaciation.
resultsUrata's (proportional function of body surface area) and Noda's (power function of body weight) formulae showed the highest agreement within their derivation age ranges. When extrapolated beyond these ranges, systematic age-dependent bias emerged, consistent with age-related hepatic involution rather than model structure. TLV remained stable between 20 and 49 years of age but declined linearly after 50 years at a rate of 2.7-2.8% per five years. Obesity was associated with increased TLV due to steatosis, whereas sex and emaciation had minimal effects.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that failure to respect derivation age ranges leads to misleading assessments of SLV equation performance. Age-range-matched external validation clarifies prior inconsistencies and provides a generalizable framework for evaluating regression-based prediction models, with implications for both clinical epidemiology and quantitative medical research.
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.