Evidence Hub

Use of new CORE risk score to predict 10 year risk of liver cirrhosis in general population: population based cohort study

R. Strandberg, F. Åberg, Juho V. Asteljoki, P. Luukkonen, V. Salomaa, A. Jula, Annamari Lundqvist, S. Männistö et al.

British medical journal, 2025

480 participants · 25 citations

Abstract

Abstract Objective To develop and validate a novel risk prediction model for incident major adverse liver outcomes (MALO) in a primary care setting. Design Population based cohort study. Setting Sweden, with validation in Finland and the UK. Participants Model development in 480 651 individuals with no known history of liver disease and blood tests taken in primary care or at occupational healthcare screenings; validation in two cohorts with 24 191 and 449 806 individuals without known history of liver disease. Main outcome measures 10 year risk of a composite outcome of compensated and decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplant, and liver related mortality, collectively referred to as MALO. Results A new risk model was created using flexible parametric survival models and several easily available laboratory based biomarkers. The model includes age, sex, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and γ-glutamyl transferase. The model’s performance was assessed in terms of discrimination (time dependent area under the curve), calibration (calibration curves), and clinical utility (decision curve analysis). External validation was done using data from the UK Biobank and the FINRISK and Health 2000 cohorts and compared with the FIB-4 score. The median follow-up time was 28 years, and 7168 MALO events were observed in that time. The incident risk of MALO at 10 years was 0.27%. The new risk score, termed CORE (Cirrhosis Outcome Risk Estimator),…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 480 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free