作者
Yifei Huang,Jia Li,Tianyun Zheng,Dong Ji,Yu Jun Wong,Hong You,Ye Gu,Musong Li,Lili Zhao,Shuang Li,Shi Geng,Na Yang,Guofeng Chen,Yan Wang,Manoj Kumar,Ankur Jindal,Wei Qin,Zhenhuai Chen,Yongning Xin,Zicheng Jiang,Xiaoling Chi,Jilin Cheng,Mingxin Zhang,Huan Liu,Ming Y. Lu,Li Li,Yong Zhang,Chunwen Pu,Deqiang Ma,Qibin He,Shanhong Tang,Chunyan Wang,Shanghao Liu,Jitao Wang,Yanna Liu,Chuan Liu,Hao Liu,Shiv Kumar Sarin,Xiaolong Qi
摘要
Background and Aims
The prevalence of high-risk varices (HRV) is low among compensated cirrhotic patients undergoing EGD. Our study aimed to identify a novel machine learning (ML)-based model, named ML EGD, for ruling out HRV and avoiding unnecessary EGDs in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Methods
An international cohort from 17 institutions from China, Singapore, and India were enrolled (CHESS2001). The variables with the top 3 importance scores (liver stiffness, platelet count, and total bilirubin) were selected by the Shapley additive explanation and input into a light gradient-boosting machine algorithm to develop ML EGD for identification of HRV. Furthermore, we built a web-based calculator for ML EGD, which is free with open access (http://www.pan-chess.cn/calculator/MLEGD_score). Unnecessary EGDs that were not performed and the rates of missed HRV were used to assess the efficacy and safety for varices screening. Results
Of 2794 enrolled patients, 1283 patients formed a real-world cohort from 1 university hospital in China used to develop and internally validate the performance of ML EGD for varices screening. They were randomly assigned into the training (n = 1154) and validation (n = 129) cohorts with a ratio of 9:1. In the training cohort, ML EGD spared 607 (52.6%) unnecessary EGDs with a missed HRV rate of 3.6%. In the validation cohort, ML EGD spared 75 (58.1%) EGDs with a missed HRV rate of 1.4%. To externally test the performance of ML EGD, 966 patients from 14 university hospitals in China (test cohort 1) and 545 from 2 hospitals in Singapore and India (test cohort 2) comprised the 2 test cohorts. In test cohort 1, ML EGD spared 506 (52.4%) EGDs with a missed HRV rate of 2.8%. In test cohort 2, ML EGD spared 224 (41.1%) EGDs with a missed HRV rate of 3.1%. When compared with the Baveno VI criteria, ML EGD spared more screening EGDs in all cohorts (training cohort, 52.6% vs 29.4%; validation cohort, 58.1% vs 44.2%; test cohort 1, 52.4% vs 26.5%; test cohort 2, 41.1% vs 21.1%, respectively; P < .001). Conclusions
We identified a novel model based on liver stiffness, platelet count, and total bilirubin, named ML EGD, as a free web-based calculator. ML EGD could efficiently help rule out HRV and avoid unnecessary EGDs in patients with compensated cirrhosis. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04307264.)