A Machine Learning Approach to Liver Histological Evaluation Predicts Clinically Significant Portal Hypertension in NASH Cirrhosis
Background and Aims The hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is the standard for estimating portal pressure but requires expertise for interpretation. We hypothesized that HVPG could be extrapolated from liver histology using a machine learning (ML) algorithm. Approach and Results Patients with N...
Saved in:
Published in | Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) Vol. 74; no. 6; pp. 3146 - 3160 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
01.12.2021
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Background and Aims
The hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) is the standard for estimating portal pressure but requires expertise for interpretation. We hypothesized that HVPG could be extrapolated from liver histology using a machine learning (ML) algorithm.
Approach and Results
Patients with NASH with compensated cirrhosis from a phase 2b trial were included. HVPG and biopsies from baseline and weeks 48 and 96 were reviewed centrally, and biopsies evaluated with a convolutional neural network (PathAI, Boston, MA). Using trichrome‐stained biopsies in the training set (n = 130), an ML model was developed to recognize fibrosis patterns associated with HVPG, and the resultant ML HVPG score was validated in a held‐out test set (n = 88). Associations between the ML HVPG score with measured HVPG and liver‐related events, and performance of the ML HVPG score for clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) (HVPG ≥ 10 mm Hg), were determined. The ML‐HVPG score was more strongly correlated with HVPG than hepatic collagen by morphometry (ρ = 0.47 vs. ρ = 0.28; P < 0.001). The ML HVPG score differentiated patients with normal (0‐5 mm Hg) and elevated (5.5‐9.5 mm Hg) HVPG and CSPH (median: 1.51 vs. 1.93 vs. 2.60; all P < 0.05). The areas under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCs) (95% CI) of the ML‐HVPG score for CSPH were 0.85 (0.80, 0.90) and 0.76 (0.68, 0.85) in the training and test sets, respectively. Discrimination of the ML‐HVPG score for CSPH improved with the addition of a ML parameter for nodularity, Enhanced Liver Fibrosis, platelets, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and bilirubin (AUROC in test set: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.92). Although baseline ML‐HVPG score was not prognostic, changes were predictive of clinical events (HR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.26, 3.59) and associated with hemodynamic response and fibrosis improvement.
Conclusions
An ML model based on trichrome‐stained liver biopsy slides can predict CSPH in patients with NASH with cirrhosis. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | Supported by Gilead Sciences, Inc. These authors contributed equally to this work. Potential conflict of interest: Dr. Chung is employed and owns stock in Gilead. Dr. Harrison consults, advises, received grants, and owns stock in Akero, Galectin, Genfit, Hepion, Metacrine, NGM, and NorthSea. He consults, advises, and received grants from Axcella, Civi, CymaBay, Gilead, High Tide, Intercept, Madrigal, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Poxel, and Sagimet. He consults, advises, and owns stock in HistoIndex and Sonic Incytes. He consults and advises Altimmune, Echosens, Foresite, Medpace, Prometic, Ridgeline, and Terns. He consults and received grants from Enyo and Viking. He advises and received grants from Galmed. He advises and owns stock in Chronwell and PathAI. He received grants and owns stock in Cirius. He consults for AgomAB, Alentis, Alimentiv, Boston Pharmaceuticals, B Riley, BVF, Canfite, Corcept, Fibronostics, Fortress, Inipharm, Ionis, Kowa, Microba, Nutrasource, and Piper Sandler. He advises 89Bio, Arrowhead, Indalo, and Theratechnologies. Dr. Abdelmalek consults, advises, and received grants from Madrigal, Intercept, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, NGM, Boehringer Ingelheim, Inventiva, Hanmi, and Novo Nordisk. She consults and advises 89Bio and Sonic Incytes. She is on the speakers’ bureau for Clinical Care Options, Fishawack, and Terra Firma. She received grants from Allergan, Genfit, Viking, Celgene, Genentech, TARGET, Enanta, Poxel, Durect, and Galmed. Dr. Shiffman consults and received grants from Gilead. He received grants from Madrigal, Viking, Galectin, Aurora, Enanta, Genfit, Intercept and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Rockey received grants from Gilead, Genfit, Galectin, Novo Nordisk, and Viking. Dr. Shanis is employed and owns stock in PathAI. Dr. Juyal is employed and owns stock in PathAI. Dr. Pokkalla is employed and owns stock in PathAI. He owns stock in Gilead. Dr. Le is employed and owns stock in PathAI. Dr. Resnick is employed and owns stock in PathAI. Dr. Montalto is employed and owns stock in PathAI. Dr. Beck owns stock in PathAI. Dr. Jia is employed and owns stock in Gilead. Dr. Afdhal advises Gilead, Ligand, GlaxoSmithKline, Sonic Incytes, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Myers is employed and owns stock in Gilead. Dr. Sanyal consults and received grants from Conatus, Gilead, Mallinckrodt, Immuron, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Merck, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Fractyl, Siemens, Madrigal, Inventiva, and Covance. He consults and owns stock in Genfit. He consults for Intercept, Pfizer, Salix, Galectin, Hemoshear, Terns, Albireo, Sanofi, Janssen, Takeda, Northsea, AMRA, Perspectum, Poxel, 89 Bio, AstraZeneca, NGM, Amgen, Regeneron, Genentech, Roche, Prosciento, Histoindex, Path AI, and Biocellvia. He received grants from Echosens‐Sandhill, Owl, and Second Genome. He owns stock in Exhalenz, Sanyal Bio, Durect, Indalo, Tiziana, and Rivus. He received royalties from Elsevier and UptoDate. ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 0270-9139 1527-3350 |
DOI: | 10.1002/hep.32087 |