Noninvasive Diagnosis of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis and Advanced Liver Fibrosis Using Machine Learning Methods: Comparative Study With Existing Quantitative Risk Scores.
fatty liver
liver fibrosis
machine learning
nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
nonalcoholic steatohepatitis
Journal
JMIR medical informatics
ISSN: 2291-9694
Titre abrégé: JMIR Med Inform
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101645109
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jun 2022
06 Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
02
02
2022
accepted:
22
04
2022
entrez:
6
6
2022
pubmed:
7
6
2022
medline:
7
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), advanced fibrosis, and subsequent cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma are becoming the most common etiology for liver failure and liver transplantation; however, they can only be diagnosed at these potentially reversible stages with a liver biopsy, which is associated with various complications and high expenses. Knowing the difference between the more benign isolated steatosis and the more severe NASH and cirrhosis informs the physician regarding the need for more aggressive management. We intend to explore the feasibility of using machine learning methods for noninvasive diagnosis of NASH and advanced liver fibrosis and compare machine learning methods with existing quantitative risk scores. We conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical data from a cohort of 492 patients with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), NASH, or advanced fibrosis. We systematically compared 5 widely used machine learning algorithms for the prediction of NAFLD, NASH, and fibrosis using 2 variable encoding strategies. Then, we compared the machine learning methods with 3 existing quantitative scores and identified the important features for prediction using the SHapley Additive exPlanations method. The best machine learning method, gradient boosting (GB), achieved the best area under the curve scores of 0.9043, 0.8166, and 0.8360 for NAFLD, NASH, and advanced fibrosis, respectively. GB also outperformed 3 existing risk scores for fibrosis. Among the variables, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), triglyceride (TG), and BMI were the important risk factors for the prediction of NAFLD, whereas aspartate transaminase (AST), ALT, and TG were the important variables for the prediction of NASH, and AST, hyperglycemia (A It is feasible to use machine learning methods for predicting NAFLD, NASH, and advanced fibrosis using routine clinical data, which potentially can be used to better identify patients who still need liver biopsy. Additionally, understanding the relative importance and differences in predictors could lead to improved understanding of the disease process as well as support for identifying novel treatment options.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), advanced fibrosis, and subsequent cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma are becoming the most common etiology for liver failure and liver transplantation; however, they can only be diagnosed at these potentially reversible stages with a liver biopsy, which is associated with various complications and high expenses. Knowing the difference between the more benign isolated steatosis and the more severe NASH and cirrhosis informs the physician regarding the need for more aggressive management.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
We intend to explore the feasibility of using machine learning methods for noninvasive diagnosis of NASH and advanced liver fibrosis and compare machine learning methods with existing quantitative risk scores.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical data from a cohort of 492 patients with biopsy-proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), NASH, or advanced fibrosis. We systematically compared 5 widely used machine learning algorithms for the prediction of NAFLD, NASH, and fibrosis using 2 variable encoding strategies. Then, we compared the machine learning methods with 3 existing quantitative scores and identified the important features for prediction using the SHapley Additive exPlanations method.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The best machine learning method, gradient boosting (GB), achieved the best area under the curve scores of 0.9043, 0.8166, and 0.8360 for NAFLD, NASH, and advanced fibrosis, respectively. GB also outperformed 3 existing risk scores for fibrosis. Among the variables, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), triglyceride (TG), and BMI were the important risk factors for the prediction of NAFLD, whereas aspartate transaminase (AST), ALT, and TG were the important variables for the prediction of NASH, and AST, hyperglycemia (A
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
It is feasible to use machine learning methods for predicting NAFLD, NASH, and advanced fibrosis using routine clinical data, which potentially can be used to better identify patients who still need liver biopsy. Additionally, understanding the relative importance and differences in predictors could lead to improved understanding of the disease process as well as support for identifying novel treatment options.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35666557
pii: v10i6e36997
doi: 10.2196/36997
pmc: PMC9210198
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e36997Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR000064
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001427
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
©Yonghui Wu, Xi Yang, Heather L Morris, Matthew J Gurka, Elizabeth A Shenkman, Kenneth Cusi, Fernando Bril, William T Donahoo. Originally published in JMIR Medical Informatics (https://medinform.jmir.org), 06.06.2022.
Références
Gut. 2020 Mar;69(3):564-568
pubmed: 31366455
J Cell Mol Med. 2002 Jul-Sep;6(3):399-406
pubmed: 12417056
Cancer. 1950 Jan;3(1):32-5
pubmed: 15405679
Hepatology. 2004 Dec;40(6):1387-95
pubmed: 15565570
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Dec;6(12):1036-1046
pubmed: 34508671
JAMA Pediatr. 2015 Feb;169(2):170-6
pubmed: 25506780
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2017 Aug;46(4):447-456
pubmed: 28585725
Gastroenterology. 2013 Oct;145(4):782-9.e4
pubmed: 23860502
BMC Med. 2018 Aug 13;16(1):130
pubmed: 30099968
Am J Gastroenterol. 2008 Jun;103(6):1372-9
pubmed: 18510618
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2018;247:166-170
pubmed: 29677944
Am J Pathol. 2003 Oct;163(4):1301-11
pubmed: 14507639
Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2012 Oct;8(10):661-8
pubmed: 24683373
Hepatology. 2011 Mar;53(3):726-36
pubmed: 21319189
JHEP Rep. 2019 Jul 19;1(4):312-328
pubmed: 32039382
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2002 Feb;17 Suppl:S186-90
pubmed: 12000605
J Nutr. 2020 Jan 1;150(1):91-98
pubmed: 31504710
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015 Jan;41(1):65-76
pubmed: 25376360
Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011 Apr;5(2):201-12
pubmed: 21476915
Liver Int. 2006 Feb;26(1):39-45
pubmed: 16420507
Thyroid. 2018 Oct;28(10):1270-1284
pubmed: 30084737
CMAJ. 2005 Mar 29;172(7):899-905
pubmed: 15795412
Biom J. 2005 Aug;47(4):458-72
pubmed: 16161804
Hepatology. 2021 Feb;73(2):811-820
pubmed: 33150599
Sci Rep. 2018 Feb 1;8(1):2112
pubmed: 29391513
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2021 Nov;29(11):1950-1960
pubmed: 34553836
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Jun;100(6):2231-8
pubmed: 25885947
Hepatology. 2006 Jun;43(6):1317-25
pubmed: 16729309