Evidence Hub

Development, validation, and prognostic evaluation of LiverPRO for the prediction of significant liver fibrosis in primary care: a prospective cohort study

K. Lindvig, K. Thorhauge, J. K. Hansen, Maria Kjærgaard, C. D. Hansen, Stine Johansen, Ellen Lyngbeck, Mads Israelsen et al.

The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2025

6,468 participants · 36 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Clinically significant liver fibrosis is associated with future adverse events in patients with steatotic liver disease. We designed a software tool for detection of clinically significant liver fibrosis in primary care.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, we developed and validated LiverPRO using six independent cohorts from Denmark, Germany, and England that included patients from primary and secondary care with steatotic liver disease related to alcohol or metabolic dysfunction. We used clinically significant fibrosis (histology stage ≥F2) and advanced fibrosis (≥F3) as outcomes for variable selection in the development cohort and built the model with fractional polynomial regression. In all cohorts, we independently validated the tool for prediction of elevated liver stiffness by transient elastography (≥8 kPa and ≥12 kPa) and for the 2-year and 5-year risk of liver-related events. Diagnostic performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), with clinical performance evaluated through sensitivity, specificity, and Harrell's C-statistic for prognostic purposes.

FINDINGS

In the development cohort (n=462), we derived 466 multivariable models consisting of age in combination with three to nine variables from a list of nine blood tests (aspartate aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, gamma-glutamyl transferase, international normalised ratio, albumin, sodium, bilirubin, platelet count, and cholesterol). In the development…

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: 6,468 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