CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 160Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and ProtectionPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsDrug-Induced Adverse Reactions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 12 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

A revised electronic version of RUCAM for the diagnosis of DILI

Open access
Hayashi, Paul H., Lucena, M. Isabel, Fontana, Robert J., Bjornsson, Einar S., Aithal, Guruprasad P., Barnhart, Huiman, Gonzalez‐Jimenez, Andres, Yang, Qinghong, Gu, Jiezhun, Andrade, Raul J., Hoofnagle, Jay H.·2022·Hepatology
DOI 10.1002/hep.32327PMC PMC9233102
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background and Aims: Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) for DILI has been hindered by subjectivity and poor reliability. We sought to improve the RUCAM using data from the Drug‐Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) and the Spanish DILI Registry, published literature, and iterative computer modeling. Approach and Results: RUCAM criteria were updated, clarified, and computerized. We removed criteria 3 (risk factors) for lack of added value and criteria 4 because we felt it more useful to assess each drug separately. Criteria 6 (drug‐specific risk) was anchored to LiverTox likelihood scores. Iterative testing in subsets of 50–100 single‐agent, nonherbal cases from both registries was done to optimize performance. We used classification tree analysis to establish diagnostic cutoffs for this revised electronic causality assessment method (RECAM) and compared RECAM with RUCAM for correlation with expert opinion diagnostic categories in 194 DILI cases (98 DILIN, 96 Spanish DILI). Area under receiver operator curves for identifying at least probable DILI were the same at 0.89 for RECAM and RUCAM. However, RECAM diagnostic categories have better observed overall agreement with expert opinion (0.62 vs. 0.56 weighted kappa, p = 0.14), and had better sensitivity to detect extreme diagnostic categories (73 vs. 54 for highly likely or high probable, p = 0.02; 65 vs. 48 for unlikely/excluded, p = 0.08) than RUCAM diagnostic categories. Conclusions: RECAM is an evidence‐based update that is at least as capable as RUCAM in diagnosing DILI compared with expert opinion but is better than RUCAM at the diagnostic extremes. RECAM’s increased objectivity and clarity will improve precision, reliability, and standardization of DILI diagnosis, but further refinement and validation in other cohorts are needed.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

RECAM is a revised, computerized version of RUCAM for diagnosing drug-induced liver injury (DILI), developed with data from the US DILIN and Spanish DILI Registry. In 194 DILI cases, RECAM and RUCAM had the same AUC of 0.89 for identifying at least probable DILI, but RECAM showed better agreement with expert opinion and better sensitivity at diagnostic extremes.

Key findings

  • RECAM reduced the original 7 RUCAM criteria to 5 domains, removed risk factors and concomitant-drug criteria, anchored drug-specific risk to LiverTox® likelihood scores, and added automatic warnings/stops for alternate diagnoses or inconsistent timing.
  • For identifying at least probable DILI, RECAM and RUCAM had the same AUC of 0.89; overall percent agreement with expert opinion was 62% for RECAM vs. 59% for RUCAM (p=0.44).
  • Weighted kappa agreement with expert opinion was 0.62 for RECAM vs. 0.56 for RUCAM (p=0.14 in the abstract; p=0.16 in Results).
  • RECAM had better sensitivity for extreme categories: 73 vs. 54 for highly likely/high probable (p=0.02) and 65 vs. 48 for unlikely/excluded (p=0.08).

Methods

  • RECAM was developed iteratively from 2015 onward through 5 stages and 12 versions, using DILIN and Spanish DILI Registry cases, published literature, expert opinion, and computer modeling; development was restricted to single-agent, non-herbal/dietary supplement cases.
  • Final testing used 98 DILIN and 96 Spanish DILI Registry single-agent, non-HDS cases; DILIN cases were stratified equally across its 5 likelihood categories, and cases were categorized by R-value as hepatocellular, cholestatic, or mixed.
  • RECAM scoring was semi-automated via computer extraction and scoring; classification tree analysis established diagnostic cut-offs, and performance was compared with RUCAM using AUCs, Spearman’s Rho, percent agreement, weighted kappa, sensitivity, and specificity against expert opinion.

Limitations

  • The paper states RECAM was developed in US and Spanish cohorts, so performance in other regions—particularly Asia—is unknown; both registries have minimum liver enzyme and bilirubin enrollment criteria, so performance in less severe injuries is unclear.
  • The paper states RECAM needs testing in a broader group of clinicians including non-hepatologists, is limited to single-agent medication cases, is not designed or tested for herbal and dietary supplement liver injury, and increases data entry compared with RUCAM.
  • The paper states some clinical judgment remains necessary, such as judging whether a biliary stricture is clinically insignificant and scoring drugs not included in LiverTox®; it also notes an AUC ceiling of 0.85–0.89 because algorithms cannot capture factors such as delayed care, death/transplant, or chronic DILI, and concludes RECAM is not a standalone diagnostic tool.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hep.32327

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 12 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    In stratified analysis by cohort, RECAM and RUCAM scale AUCs showed better performance in Spanish DILI cases compared to DILIN cases.

    “In a stratified analysis by cohort the RECAM and the RUCAM scale AUCs showed better performance in Spanish DILI cases compared to DILIN cases.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    RECAM has better sensitivity than RUCAM to detect highly likely or high probable DILI (73 vs 54, p=0.02).

    “had better sensitivity to detect extreme diagnostic categories (73 vs. 54 for highly likely or high probable, p=0.02; 65 vs. 48 for unlikely/excluded, p = 0.08) than RUCAM diagnostic categories.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingreasoning

    These stops and penalizations led to downward distribution of scores in both registries, particularly unlikely or excluded cases.

    “These stops and penalizations led to downward distribution of scores in both registries, particularly unlikely or excluded cases.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    RECAM has better sensitivity than RUCAM to detect unlikely/excluded DILI (65 vs 48, p=0.08).

    “had better sensitivity to detect extreme diagnostic categories (73 vs. 54 for highly likely or high probable, p=0.02; 65 vs. 48 for unlikely/excluded, p = 0.08) than RUCAM diagnostic categories.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    RECAM and RUCAM performed similarly well across all three cut-offs (AUC > 0.8 in all likelihood categories).

    “RECAM and RUCAM performed similarly well across all three cut-offs (AUC > 0.8 in all likelihood categories).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 19
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 8

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    For Spanish cases, RECAM AUCs ranged from 0.95 (at least probable) to 0.99 (at least possible); for DILIN cases, AUCs ranged from 0.80 (at least possible) to 0.86 (at least probable).

    “For the Spanish cases, the RECAM AUCs ranged from 0.95 (at least probable cases) to 0.99 (at least possible cases), while in DILIN cases AUCs ranged from 0.80 (at least possible cases) to 0.86 (at least probable cases) (Supplemental Table 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given

    In both registries, liver biopsy was often not obtained, and pathognomonic signs of DILI or alternate diagnosis were even less common.

    “In both registries, liver biopsy was often not obtained, and pathognomonic signs of DILI or alternate diagnosis were even less common.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Overall percent agreement between RECAM and expert opinion was 62%, and between RUCAM and expert opinion was 59% (p=0.44).

    “The overall percent agreements between the RECAM and RUCAM scales with expert’s opinion were 62% and 59%, respectively (p=0.44).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    RECAM diagnostic cut-offs are ≥8 for highly likely/high probable, 7 to 4 for probable, 3 to −3 for possible, and ≤ −4 for unlikely/excluded DILI.

    “By using classification tree approach, we estimated RECAM diagnostic cut-offs of ≥8 for highly likely/high probable, 7 to 4 for probable, 3 to −3 for possible, and, ≤ −4, , unlikely/excluded DILI, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The differences in performance between RECAM and RUCAM were likely due to a wider scoring range for latency and dechallenge developed from case data and heavier penalization for lack of data or non-DILI diagnosis.

    “These differences were likely due to a wider scoring range for latency and dechallenge that was developed from case data and the heavier penalization for lack of data or data indicating a non-DILI diagnosis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    RECAM's separation of diagnostic categories, especially unlikely and excluded cases, was better in Spanish cases because DILIN often excludes cases with definitive competing diagnoses during screening, while Spanish group retains such cases.

    “RECAM’s separation of diagnostic categories, especially unlikely and excluded cases, was also better in Spanish cases (Supplemental Figure 1c) because the DILIN often excludes cases that have definitive competing diagnoses arise during screening, while the Spanish group retains such cases for data analyses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: DILIN often excludes cases that have definitive competing diagnoses arise during screening, while the Spanish group retains such cases for data analyses.

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    RUCAM is the most widely used and accepted DILI diagnostic tool.

    “It is the most widely used and accepted DILI diagnostic tool.2, 3”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [2] Chalasani NP, Maddur H, Russo MW, ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Idiosyncratic Drug-Induced Liver Injury. Am J Gastroenterol 2021; 116: 878– 898. 33929376 source
    • cites [3] European Association for the Study of the Liver. Electronic address eee, Clinical Practice Guideline Panel C, Panel m, et al. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Drug-induced liver injury. J Hepatol 2019; 70: 1222– 1261. 30926241

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductcitation

    RECAM is not designed nor tested for HDS liver injury.

    “The RECAM is also not designed nor tested for HDS liver injury which is increasingly reported.20–22”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [20] Navarro VJ, Barnhart H, Bonkovsky HL, Liver injury from herbals and dietary supplements in the U.S. Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network. Hepatology 2014; 60: 1399– 408. 25043597 PMC4293199 source
    • cites [21] Medina-Caliz I, Garcia-Cortes M, Gonzalez-Jimenez A, Herbal and Dietary Supplement-Induced Liver Injuries in the Spanish DILI Registry. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16: 14951502. 29307848 source
    • cites [22] Shen T, Liu Y, Shang J, Incidence and Etiology of Drug-Induced Liver Injury in Mainland China. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 2230– 2241 e11. 30742832 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    RECAM offers automated scoring with less subjective input which should lead to better reliability.

    “RECAM also offers an automated scoring with less subjective input which should lead to better reliability.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    RUCAM has been hindered by subjectivity and poor reliability.

    “Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) for drug-induced liver injury (DILI) has been hindered by subjectivity and poor reliability.”
    • Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
      “Since 1993, there have been three major problems with RUCAM: (1) unclear operating instructions and subjectivity leading to poor reliability and usability, (2) unclear validity due to lack of an accepted gold standard and (3) domain criteria that are not evidence-based.6”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [4] Kaplowitz N Causality assessment versus guilt-by-association in drug hepatotoxicity. Hepatology 2001; 33: 308– 10. 11124850
    • cites [5] Hayashi PH. Causality assessment in drug-induced liver injury. Semin Liver Dis 2009; 29: 348– 56. 19826968

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [6] Garcia-Cortes M, Stephens C, Lucena MI, Causality assessment methods in drug induced liver injury: strengths and weaknesses. J Hepatol 2011; 55: 683– 691. 21349301 source
    • cites [7] Danan G, Teschke R. RUCAM in Drug and Herb Induced Liver Injury: The Update. Int J Mol Sci 2015; 17. PMC4730261 26712744 source

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    RECAM was developed in US and Spanish cohorts, so its performance in other regions, particularly Asia, is unknown.

    “It was developed in US and Spanish cohorts, so we do not know how it may perform in other regions, particularly Asia.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductnone given

    RECAM is limited to single agent medication cases.

    “It is limited to single agent medication cases leaving the user to score each medication individually in multi-drug cases.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The elimination of alternate diagnoses only prevents a loss of points because ruling out competing etiologies does not directly support a DILI diagnosis in the same way as latency and dechallenge do.

    “The elimination of alternate diagnoses only prevents a loss of points because ruling out competing etiologies does not directly support a DILI diagnose in the same way as latency and dechallenge do.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: DILI is a diagnosis of exclusion where competing causes should only hurt the case.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationown data

    RECAM has better sensitivities at the extreme diagnostic categories and tends to have better overall agreement with expert opinion.

    “RECAM has better sensitivities at the extreme diagnostic categories and tends to have better overall agreement with expert opinion.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisereasoning

    In the RUCAM, an alternate diagnosis or other data could rule out DILI, but the case would still gain points in other criteria.

    “In the RUCAM, an alternate diagnosis or other data could rule out DILI, but the case would still gain points in other criteria (Supplemental Cases 2 and 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The electronic, automated platform available on the Internet should help with efforts at harmonization and standardization in DILI research.

    “The electronic, automated platform that is available for all to use on the Internet should also help with efforts at harmonization and standardization in DILI research.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Accuracy of 80-90% for identifying at least probable DILI compared to expert opinion is high, but not high enough to make RECAM a standalone diagnostic tool.

    “Accuracy of 80–90% for identifying at least probable DILI compared to expert opinion is high, but not high enough to make the RECAM a standalone diagnostic tool.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Domains are based on data from well-vetted cases that were often followed for a minimum of 6 months.

    “Domains are based on data from well-vetted cases that were often followed for a minimum of 6 months.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisenone given

    The RUCAM assigns a single point for any latency from 5 to 90 days after drug start, while RECAM has 3 different scores within 2 to 90 days regardless of liver injury type.

    “The RUCAM assigns a single point for any latency from 5 to 90 days after drug start, while the RECAM has 3 different scores within the span of 2 to 90 days regardless the type of liver injury.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    RECAM's AUC of 0.89 and better ability to separate diagnostic categories provide a useful framework for decision making.

    “RECAM’s AUC of 0.89 and better ability to separate diagnostic categories (Figure 1) provide a useful framework for such decision making.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationown data

    RECAM cuts unnecessary variables that were not diagnostically helpful and is less subjective.

    “It cuts unnecessary variables that were not diagnostically helpful and is less subjective.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    RECAM provides an opportunity to conduct causality assessment using standardized, quantitative and categorical data fields which should lead to improved case identification and possibly earlier diagnosis.

    “Indeed, the RECAM provides an opportunity to conduct causality assessment using standardized, quantitative and categorical data fields which should lead to improved case identification and possibly earlier diagnosis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Improved stratification may better classify cases for genetic and other DILI biomarker development, and increased consistency will make it a better teaching tool.

    “The improved stratification may better classify cases for genetic (e.g., HLA) and other DILI biomarker development, and increased consistency will make it a better teaching tool.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
23 of 23

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Spanish experts rely more on RUCAM for their diagnostic categories.

    “as the Spanish experts rely more on RUCAM for their diagnostic categories.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    DILIN often excludes cases that have definitive competing diagnoses arise during screening, while the Spanish group retains such cases for data analyses.

    “because the DILIN often excludes cases that have definitive competing diagnoses arise during screening, while the Spanish group retains such cases for data analyses.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A positive prospective rechallenge is highly indicative of DILI.

    “a positive prospective rechallenge is highly indicative of DILI and awarded more points than any other component in the RECAM (+6).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    DILI is a diagnosis of exclusion where competing causes should only hurt the case.

    “because DILI is a diagnosis of exclusion where competing causes should only hurt the case.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Liver histology is uncommonly diagnostic of DILI.

    “Liver histology is uncommonly diagnostic of DILI, so points awarded were limited.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The heterogeneity of DILI phenotypes makes it difficult to develop a single, easy-to-use diagnostic tool for all medications.

    “The heterogeneity of DILI phenotypes makes it difficult to develop a single, easy-to-use diagnostic tool for all medications.”
6 of 6

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • RECAM covers a dynamic range of −6 to +20 points.

    “This semi‐automated, computerized platform and validated scoring system covers a dynamic range of −6 to +20 points.”

    From Methods for causality assessment of idiosyncratic drug‐induced liver injury (2025) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Results section, “RECAM warnings and stops” (page unavailable), says RECAM can automatically assign a final score of −6. Our copy does not establish +20 as the upper limit or state that −6 to +20 is the scoring range (searched for +20, 20 points, and maximum score). (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • DILI diagnosis will become more precise, reliable and consistent thanks to RECAM's enhanced objectivity and clarity.

    “In addition, DILI diagnosis will become more precise, reliable and consistent thanks to RECAM's enhanced objectivity and clarity [34].”

    From DILI Differences and Similarities between the US and Europe (2026) · cites this paper as [34]

  • RECAM was redesigned using data from DILI cases due to single drugs included in prospective registries and, where necessary, expert opinion and literature information.

    “This method was redesigned using data from DILI cases due to single drugs included in these prospective registries and, where necessary, expert opinion and literature information.”

    From Methods for causality assessment of idiosyncratic drug‐induced liver injury (2025) · cites this paper as [37]

  • Contrary to expectations, the distinction between hepatocellular and cholestatic/mixed injury was not necessary for latency and dechallenge scoring in RECAM.

    “Contrary to expectations, the distinction between hepatocellular and cholestatic/mixed injury was not necessary for latency (both from drug start & drug stop) and dechallenge scoring.”

    From Methods for causality assessment of idiosyncratic drug‐induced liver injury (2025) · cites this paper as [37]

  • RECAM diagnostic testing is categorical and menu-driven to reduce interobserver variability.

    “Diagnostic testing is categorical and menu‐driven to reduce interobserver variability.”

    From Methods for causality assessment of idiosyncratic drug‐induced liver injury (2025) · cites this paper as [37]

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Different p-values for the same weighted-kappa comparison

    Minor

    The abstract reports p = 0.14 for the 0.62 versus 0.56 weighted-kappa comparison, while the Results report p = 0.16 for that comparison.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Hayashi, P. H., Lucena, M. I., Fontana, R. J., Bjornsson, E. S., Aithal, G. P., Barnhart, H., Gonzalez‐Jimenez, A., Yang, Q., Gu, J., Andrade, R. J., & Hoofnagle, J. H.
Affiliations
  • United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
  • Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (ES)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of Iceland (IS)
  • Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
  • Duke University (US)
  • Servicio de Aparato Digestivo y de Farmacología Clínica,Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria,Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga‐IBIMA,Facultad de Medicina,Universidad de Málaga,Málaga,Spain
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (US)
Corresponding author
Hayashi, Paul H.
ORCID
Venue
Hepatology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2022-03-22
Volume
76
Issue
1
Pages
18-31
ISSN
  • 0270-9139 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-3350
DOI
10.1002/hep.32327
PMC
PMC9233102
OpenAlex
W4206399120
Cited by
160
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 22
FWCI
17.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Hepatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Málaga (University of Málaga) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Opin vísindi (Opin vísindi) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • RISalud Institutional Health Repository of Andalucía (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Opin vísindi (Opin vísindi) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Málaga (University of Málaga) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases
  • University of Pennsylvania (UL1 RR024986, UL1 RR024134, U01-DK100928)
  • University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UL1TR000083, UL1‐RR024982, U01-DK083027, U01-DK083020, U01-DK082992, UL1 RR024986, UL1 RR024150, UL1 RR024134, U01-DK100928, UL1 RR025761)
  • Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance (UL1RR024986, UL1TR000083, UL1RR024982, UL1 RR024150, UL1 RR025761, UL1 RR024134)
  • National Institutes of Health (5u01dk065211-22, UL1TR000083, 5u01dk065238-11, 5u01dk065193-05, 5u01dk065184-22, U01-DK065211)
  • University of California, San Francisco
  • Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PT 20/00127, PI18/01804)
  • European Regional Development Fund (PI18/01804)
  • National Cancer Institute
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (U01 DK-065238, U01‐DK065193, U01 DK-065184, DK065211, U24DK065176, U01DK083023, DK065184, U01 DK-065211, U01DK082992, DK065176, DK065238, U01DK100928, U01DK083027, U01DK065201, U01DK083020)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024986, UL1RR024982, UL1RR025761, UL1RR024134, UL1RR024150)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Drug-Induced Adverse Reactions
Keywords
drug-induced liver injury, RUCAM, causality assessment, diagnostic criteria, Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network, classification trees
MeSH terms
Dyphylline, Electronics, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Causality, Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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