ArticleHepatology communications2026
Incidence and diagnostic yield of repeat imaging-based screening for hepatic arteriovenous malformations in patients with HHT.
Article in Hepatology communications, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsHepatic arteriovenous malformations (HAVMs) are a common visceral manifestation of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia that can lead to heart failure and biliary ischemia. Current guidelines recommend baseline hepatic screening in adulthood, but the utility of repeat imaging after an initial negative or nonactionable finding remains unclear. We sought to clarify the prevalence of clinically significant HAVMs following negative or nonactionable imaging. APPROACH AND
resultsWe isolated all adult patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia evaluated at the University of California, San Francisco HHT Center of Excellence between 2013 and 2025. HAVM status was determined by natural language processing of unstructured clinical and radiology notes. Of 477 patients, 195 (40.9%) had initial imaging interpreted as either HAVM-negative or nonactionable, defined as HAVM-positive but not clinically significant to warrant further imaging. Of the 195, 30 (15.4%) underwent repeat hepatic imaging. Of the 30, 17 (56.7%) were screened incidentally and 13 (43.3%) were screened due to new signs and/or symptoms. Clinically significant HAVMs were identified in 2 patients, representing a 1.0% frequency of subsequent detection among all patients who were HAVM-negative/nonactionable and 6.7% among those re-imaged. Across 48 total repeat imaging studies, the detection rate per study was 4.2%. Across 386.5 person-years of follow-up, the incidence rate of clinically significant HAVM recognition was 0.52 per 100 person-years.
conclusionsBoth instances of HAVM identification reflected evolving clinical features and reinterpretation of prior imaging, not de novo lesion development. These findings support periodic reassessment of initial negative/nonactionable screening studies, with a low threshold for reassessment in the presence of new signs and symptoms.
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.