ArticleGastro hep advances2024
Use of Machine Learning to Predict Onset of NAFLD in an All-Comers Cohort-Development and Validation in 2 Large Asian Cohorts.
Article in Gastro hep advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Population-Level Gastroenterology and Hepatology: A Comprehensive Review of Public Health Applications and Quantitative Impact.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Review
- Harnessing AI-driven approaches for detecting metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, assessing fibrosis, and stratifying hepatocellular carcinoma risk: a scoping review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- From traditional metabolic markers to ensemble learning: comparative application of machine learning models for predicting NAFLD risk in adolescents.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is one of the most common liver diseases. There are no universally accepted models that accurately predict time to onset of NAFLD. Machine learning (ML) models may allow prediction of such time-to-event (ie, survival) outcomes. This study aims to develop and independently validate ML-derived models to allow personalized prediction of time to onset of NAFLD in individuals who have no NAFLD at baseline. Methods: The development dataset comprised 25,599 individuals from a South Korean NAFLD registry. A random 70:30 split divided it into training and internal validation sets. ML survival models (random survival forest, extra survival trees) were fitted, with time to NAFLD diagnosis in months as the target variable and routine anthropometric and laboratory parameters as predictors. The independent validation dataset comprised 16,173 individuals from a Chinese open dataset. Models were evaluated using the concordance index (c-index) and Brier score on both the internal and independent validation sets. Results: The datasets (development vs independent validation) had 1,331,107 vs 543,874 person months of follow-up, NAFLD incidence of 25.7% (6584 individuals) vs 14.4% (2322 individuals), and median time to NAFLD onset of 60 (interquartile range 38-75) vs 24 (interquartile range 13-37) months, respectively. The ML models achieved a good c-index of >0.7 in the validation cohort-random survival forest 0.751 (95% confidence interval 0.742-0.759), extra survival trees 0.752 (95% confidence interval 0.744-0.762). Conclusion: ML models can predict time-to-onset of NAFLD based on routine patient data. They can be used by clinicians to deliver personalized predictions to patients, which may facilitate patient counseling and clinical decision making on interval imaging timing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.