ArticleJournal of clinical and translational hepatology2026
Consensus versus Outcome-based Definitions of Acute-on-chronic Liver Failure: Implications for Risk Stratification and Case Identification.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational hepatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) lacks a universally accepted definition, and recent efforts have proposed consensus organ failure criteria. In this study, we aimed to compare the clinical validity of a recently proposed consensus ACLF framework with the outcome-calibrated A-TANGO classification. Methods: We performed a multinational cohort study including 2,398 patients from the TIH cohort (India) and 2,568 from the CATCH-LIFE cohort (China) who were hospitalized with acute decompensation of cirrhosis. ACLF was defined using A-TANGO and an operationalized version of the 2025 consensus framework. Outcomes were 28- and 90-day mortality. Analyses assessed case capture, overlap, mortality risk, sensitivity, specificity, and net reclassification improvement (NRI). Results: ACLF prevalence differed substantially by definition. In TIH, A-TANGO classified 79.2% as ACLF versus 42.3% by the consensus definition; in CATCH-LIFE, the corresponding values were 31.4% versus 5.8%, respectively. Most consensus ACLF cases were captured by A-TANGO, which additionally classified 26%-37% of patients as having ACLF. These patients had substantial mortality (28-day: 18.1%-26.9%; 90-day: 33.2%-37.9%), significantly higher than those negative by both frameworks and comparable to established ACLF risk thresholds. A-TANGO showed higher sensitivity for 28-day mortality (TIH: 94.1% vs. 67.8%; CATCH-LIFE: 76.1% vs. 25.6%), whereas consensus criteria were more specific. Reclassification analyses showed improved discrimination with A-TANGO (NRI: 17.1% in TIH; 27.4% in CATCH-LIFE). Within the consensus non-ACLF group, A-TANGO further stratified patients into distinct risk groups with stepwise increase in mortality. Conclusions: In conclusion, the two frameworks identify fundamentally different populations. The consensus definition significantly reduces sensitivity and under-recognizes high-risk patients. Compared with consensus definitions, the outcome-calibrated framework better supports diagnosis, clinical decision-making, risk stratification, and trial design in ACLF.
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.