The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Prospective Analysis of Discordant Results between Biochemical Markers and Biopsy in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C
Abstract
Background: The FibroTest and ActiTest are noninvasive biochemical markers of liver injury that are intended for use as alternatives to liver biopsy in patients with chronic hepatitis C. The aims of this study were to assess the quality of biopsy and the prevalence of discordances between biopsy and markers, to identify factors associated with discordances, and to attribute these discordances to either markers or biopsy failure. Methods: Fibrosis stage and activity grade were prospectively assessed on the same day by a liver biopsy and by markers. On the basis of risk factors for failure and independent endpoints, discordance was classified as being attributable to biopsy or to markers. Results: Only 74 of 537 patients (14%) had a biopsy size ≥25 mm. Discordance was observed in 154 of 537 patients (29%), including 16% for fibrosis staging and 17% for activity grading. Steatosis, an inflammatory profile, and biopsy size were associated with discordance. Discordance was attributable to failure of markers in 13 patients (2.4%) and to biopsy failure in 97 (18%; P <0.001 vs Fibrotest and Actitest), and was nonattributable in 44 patients (8.2%). The most frequent failures attributable to markers were false negatives (1.3%) attributable to inflammation. The most frequent failures attributable to biopsy were false negatives of activity grading (10.1%) and of fibrosis staging (4.5%), both associated with smaller biopsy size and steatosis. False positives of fibrosis staging (3.5%) were associated with fragmented biopsies. Conclusion: In this series, the size of liver biopsy is adequate in only a minor proportion (∼14%) of patients with chronic hepatitis C. When biopsy and marker results are discordant, a reason can be identified in more than two-thirds of cases and, in those cases, biopsy failure is >7 times more common than diagnostic failure of markers.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
(2015) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2015.04.006 · Cited by 1,875
Use of administrative claims data for identifying patients with cirrhosis
Nehra, M. S., Ma, Y., Clark, C., Amarasingham, R., Rockey, D. C., & Singal, A. G. (2013) · Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology · doi:10.1097/mcg.0b013e3182688d2f · Cited by 211
Canivet, C. M., Costentin, C., Irvine, K. M., Delamarre, A., Lannes, A., Sturm, N., Oberti, F., Patel, P. J., Decaens, T., Irles‐Depé, M., et al. (2023) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.32665 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- Poynard, T., Munteanu, M., Imbert-Bismut, F., Charlotte, F., Thabut, D., Le Calvez, S., Messous, D., Thibault, V., Benhamou, Y., Moussalli, J., & Ratziu, V.
- Venue
- Clinical Chemistry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-08-01
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1344-1355
- ISSN
- 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8561
- OpenAlex
- W2097625018
- Cited by
- 343
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prospective Analysis of Discordant Results between Biochemical Markers and Biopsy in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1373/clinchem.2004.032227
- The paper
- Poynard, T., Munteanu, M., Imbert-Bismut, F., Charlotte, F., Thabut, D., Le Calvez, S., Messous, D., Thibault, V., Benhamou, Y., Moussalli, J., & Ratziu, V. (2004). Prospective Analysis of Discordant Results between Biochemical Markers and Biopsy in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C. Clinical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2004.032227
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.