Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 625

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Utility and appropriateness of the fatty liver inhibition of progression (FLIP) algorithm and steatosis, activity, and fibrosis (SAF) score in the evaluation of biopsies of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

Open access
Bedossa, Pierre·2014·Hepatology

Abstract

Biopsy is still the gold standard for the diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis but the definition may vary among pathologists, a drawback especially in evaluation of biopsies for clinical trials. We previously developed a scoring system (steatosis, activity, fibrosis [SAF]) allowing the use of an algorithm (fatty liver inhibition of progression [FLIP]) for the classification of liver injury in morbid obesity. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of the SAF score and FLIP algorithm can decrease interobserver variations among pathologists. In a first session, pathologists categorized 40 liver biopsies of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) according to their own experience. In a second reading session, each pathologist reclassified the same slides by using the FLIP algorithm and SAF score, blinded to their first evaluation. The experiment was repeated with two different groups of pathologists at varying levels of training in liver pathology. The percentage of biopsy interpretation concordant with reference evaluation increased from 77% to 97% in Group 1 and from 42% to 75% in Group 2 after the use of the SAF score and FLIP algorithm. The strength of concordance in classification increased in Group 1 from moderate (κ = 0.54) to substantial (κ = 0.66) and from fair (κ = 0.35) to substantial (κ = 0.61) in Group 2 with application of the algorithm. With regard to the SAF score, concordance was substantial in Group 1 for steatosis (κ = 0.61), activity (κ = 0.75), and almost perfect for fibrosis (κ = 0.83 after pooling 1a, 1b, and 1c together into a single score F1). Similar trends were observed in Group 2 (κ = 0.54 for S, κ = 0.68 for A, and κ = 0.72 for F). Conclusion: The FLIP algorithm based on the SAF score should decrease interobserver variations among pathologists and are likely to be implemented in pathology practice. (Hepatology 2014;60:565–575)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hep.27173

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Bedossa, P.
Venue
Hepatology
Published
2014-08
Volume
60
Issue
2
Pages
565-575
ISSN
0270-9139 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2139654088
Cited by
625
References
11
FWCI
24.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.