Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,376

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sampling Variability of Liver Fibrosis in Chronic Hepatitis C

Bedossa, Pierre, Dargère, Delphine, Paradis, Valerie·2003·Hepatology
DOI 10.1016/j.hep.2003.09.022
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Fibrosis is a common endpoint of clinical trials in chronic hepatitis C, and liver biopsy remains the gold standard for fibrosis evaluation. However, variability in the distribution of fibrosis within the liver is a potential limitation. Our aim was to assess the heterogeneity of liver fibrosis and its influence on the accuracy of assessment of fibrosis with liver biopsy. Surgical samples of livers from patients with chronic hepatitis C were studied. Measurement of fibrosis was performed on the whole section by using both image analysis and METAVIR score (reference value). From the digitized image of the whole section, virtual biopsy specimens of increasing length were produced. Fibrosis was assessed independently on each individual virtual biopsy specimen. Results were compared with the reference value according to the length of the biopsy specimen. By using image analysis, the coefficient of variation of fibrosis measurement with 15–mm long biopsy specimens was 55%; and for biopsy specimens of 25–mm length it was 45%. By using the METAVIR scoring system, 65% of biopsies 15 mm in length were categorized correctly according to the reference value. This increased to 75% for a 25–mm liver biopsy specimen without any substantial benefit for longer biopsy specimens. Sampling variability of fibrosis is a significant limitation in the assessment of fibrosis with liver biopsy. In conclusion, this study suggests that a length of at least 25 mm is necessary to evaluate fibrosis accurately with a semiquantitative score. Sampling variability becomes a major limitation when using more accurate methods such as automated image analysis.

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 · 10.1016/j.hep.2003.09.022

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Desmet, 1994, Hepatology, 19, 1513, 10.1002/hep.1840190629 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Gebo, 2002, Hepatology, 36, s161, 10.1002/hep.1840360721 · DOI
  3. Saadeh, 2001, Hepatology, 33, 196, 10.1053/jhep.2001.20534 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bedossa, 1994, Hepatology, 20, 15, 10.1002/hep.1840200104 · DOI
  5. Westin, 1999, Liver, 19, 183, 10.1111/j.1478-3231.1999.tb00033.x · DOI
  6. Gascon-Barre, 1989, J Histochem Cytochem, 37, 3, 10.1177/37.3.2465335 · DOI
  7. Soloway, 1971, Am J Dig Dis, 16, 1082, 10.1007/BF02235164 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Knodell, 1981, Hepatology, 1, 431, 10.1002/hep.1840010511 · DOI
  9. Bedossa, 1996, Hepatology, 24, 289, 10.1002/hep.510240201 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Chevallier, 1994, Hepatology, 20, 349, 10.1002/hep.1840200213 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Ishak, 1995, J Hepatol, 22, 696, 10.1016/0168-8278(95)80226-6 · DOI
  12. Pilette, 1998, J Hepatol, 27, 1, 10.1002/hep.510270101 · DOI
  13. Ryoo, 1989, Mod Pathol, 2, 382
  14. Lin, 1998, J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 13, 75, 10.1111/j.1440-1746.1998.tb00549.x · DOI
  15. Masseroli, 2000, J Hepatol, 32, 453, 10.1016/S0168-8278(00)80397-9 · DOI
  16. Kage, 1997, Hepatology, 25, 1028, 10.1002/hep.510250439 · DOI
  17. Moal, 2002, Hepatology, 36, 840, 10.1053/jhep.2002.35533 · DOI
  18. Caballero, 2001, J Hepatol, 34, 740, 10.1016/S0168-8278(01)00006-X · DOI
  19. Fort, 1998, Hepatology, 28, 1525, 10.1002/hep.510280612 · DOI
  20. Poynard, 2000, Semin Liver Dis, 20, 47, 10.1055/s-2000-9258 · DOI
  21. Layden, 1979, Arch Intern Med, 139, 856, 10.1001/archinte.1979.03630450010005 · DOI
  22. Abdi, 1979, Arch Intern Med, 139, 667, 10.1001/archinte.1979.03630430043014 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Maharaj, 1986, Lancet, 1, 523, 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90883-4 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Baunsgaard, 1979, Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand, 87, 21
  25. Hohlund, 1980, Scand J Gastroenterol, 15, 329, 10.3109/00365528009181479 · DOI
  26. Feldmann, 1995, J Hepatol, 22, 49, 10.1016/0270-9139(95)94111-8 · DOI
  27. Ishak, 1995, J Hepatol, 22, 696, 10.1016/0168-8278(95)80226-6 · DOI
  28. Fontana, 2002, Hepatology, 36, s57, 10.1002/hep.1840360708 · DOI
  29. Hirata, 2001, Eur J Clin Invest, 31, 528, 10.1046/j.1365-2362.2001.00840.x · DOI
  30. Oberti, 1997, Gastroenterology, 113, 1609, 10.1053/gast.1997.v113.pm9352863 · DOI
  31. Cho, 2001, Radiology, 221, 740, 10.1148/radiol.2213010106 · DOI
  32. Afdhal, 2003, Hepatology, 37, 972, 10.1053/jhep.2003.50223 · DOI
  33. Forns, 2002, Hepatology, 36, 986, 10.1053/jhep.2002.36128 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Bedossa, P., Dargère, D., & Paradis, V.
Venue
Hepatology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2003-12
Volume
38
Issue
6
Pages
1449-1457
ISSN
0270-9139 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.hep.2003.09.022
OpenAlex
W2013716066
Cited by
2,376
References
2
FWCI
45.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 4292 d)

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.