Cited by 35Liver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareLiver Diseases and Immunity

Benchmarking clinical risk prediction algorithms with ensemble machine learning for the noninvasive diagnosis of liver fibrosis in NAFLD

Charu, Vivek, Liang, Jane W., Mannalithara, Ajitha, Kwong, Allison, Tian, Lu, Kim, W. Ray·2024·Hepatology

Abstract

Background and Aims: Ensemble machine-learning methods, like the superlearner, combine multiple models into a single one to enhance predictive accuracy. Here we explore the potential of the superlearner as a benchmarking tool for clinical risk prediction, illustrating the approach to identifying significant liver fibrosis among patients with NAFLD. Approach and Results: We used 23 demographic/clinical variables to train superlearner(s) on data from the NASH-clinical research network observational study (n = 648) and validated models with data from the FLINT trial (n = 270) and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) participants with NAFLD (n = 1244). Comparing the superlearner’s performance to existing models (Fibrosis-4 [FIB-4], NAFLD fibrosis score, Forns, AST to Platelet Ratio Index [APRI], BARD, and Steatosis-Associated Fibrosis Estimator [SAFE]), it exhibited strong discriminative ability in the FLINT and NHANES validation sets, with AUCs of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.73–0.84) and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.68–0.79) respectively. Conclusions: Notably, the SAFE score performed similarly to the superlearner, both of which outperformed FIB-4, APRI, Forns, and BARD scores in the validation data sets. Surprisingly, the superlearner derived from 12 base models matched the performance of one with 90 base models. Overall, the superlearner, being the “best-in-class” machine-learning predictor, excelled in detecting fibrotic NASH, and this approach can be used to benchmark the performance of conventional clinical risk prediction models.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/hep.0000000000000908

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Charu, V., Liang, J. W., Mannalithara, A., Kwong, A., Tian, L., & Kim, W. R.
Affiliations
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
Corresponding author
Charu, Vivek
Venue
Hepatology
Published
2024-04-30
Volume
80
Issue
5
Pages
1184-1195
ISSN
0270-9139 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4396515817
Cited by
35
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 1
FWCI
10.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Hepatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (KL2TR003143)
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (K23AA029197)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK127224, P30DK116074)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Liver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver Diseases and Immunity
Keywords
liver fibrosis, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, super learner, ensemble learning, clinical risk prediction, benchmarking, noninvasive fibrosis assessment, FIB-4, APRI, NHANES
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Adult, Algorithms, Female, Humans, Liver Cirrhosis, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Assessment, Benchmarking, Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

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