liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Machine learning algorithm improves the detection of NASH (NAS-based) and at-risk NASH: A development and validation study
Amsterdam UMC, Netherlands.
Fraunhofer Inst Digital Med MEVIS, Germany.
Amsterdam UMC, Netherlands.
Angers Univ Hosp, France.
Show others and affiliations
2023 (English)In: Hepatology, ISSN 0270-9139, E-ISSN 1527-3350, Vol. 78, no 1, p. 258-271Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background and Aims: Detecting NASH remains challenging, while at-risk NASH (steatohepatitis and F >= 2) tends to progress and is of interest for drug development and clinical application. We developed prediction models by supervised machine learning techniques, with clinical data and biomarkers to stage and grade patients with NAFLD. Approach and Results: Learning data were collected in the Liver Investigation: Testing Marker Utility in Steatohepatitis metacohort (966 biopsy-proven NAFLD adults), staged and graded according to NASH CRN. Conditions of interest were the clinical trial definition of NASH (NAS >= 4;53%), at-risk NASH (NASH with F >= 2;35%), significant (F >= 2;47%), and advanced fibrosis (F >= 3;28%). Thirty-five predictors were included. Missing data were handled by multiple imputations. Data were randomly split into training/validation (75/25) sets. A gradient boosting machine was applied to develop 2 models for each condition: clinical versus extended (clinical and biomarkers). Two variants of the NASH and at-risk NASH models were constructed: direct and composite models.Clinical gradient boosting machine models for steatosis/inflammation/ballooning had AUCs of 0.94/0.79/0.72. There were no improvements when biomarkers were included. The direct NASH model produced AUCs (clinical/extended) of 0.61/0.65. The composite NASH model performed significantly better (0.71) for both variants. The composite at-risk NASH model had an AUC of 0.83 (clinical and extended), an improvement over the direct model. Significant fibrosis models had AUCs (clinical/extended) of 0.76/0.78. The extended advanced fibrosis model (0.86) performed significantly better than the clinical version (0.82). Conclusions: Detection of NASH and at-risk NASH can be improved by constructing independent machine learning models for each component, using only clinical predictors. Adding biomarkers only improved the accuracy of fibrosis.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS , 2023. Vol. 78, no 1, p. 258-271
National Category
Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-200100DOI: 10.1097/HEP.0000000000000364ISI: 001116331700007PubMedID: 36994719OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-200100DiVA, id: diva2:1827795
Note

Funding Agencies|Jenny Lee, Quentin M. Anstee, and Pierre Bedossa conceptualized and designed the study; Jerome Boursier, Salvatore Petta, Kristy Wonders, Dina Tiniakos, Pierre Bedossa, Andreas Geier, Sven Francque, Mike Allison, Georgios Papatheodoridis, Helena Cortez-Pin

Available from: 2024-01-15 Created: 2024-01-15 Last updated: 2024-01-26

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ekstedt, Mattias
By organisation
Division of Diagnostics and Specialist MedicineFaculty of Medicine and Health SciencesMag- tarmmedicinska kliniken
In the same journal
Hepatology
Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 26 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf