BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Editorial
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Gastroenterol. Aug 14, 2026; 32(30): 115546
Published online Aug 14, 2026. doi: 10.3748/wjg.115546
Table 1 Comparison of non-invasive diagnostic tools for high-risk esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients[26-28,30,31]
Model
Parameters
Detection modalities
Target etiology
Diagnostic performance (AUC)
Main limitations
FIB-4plus (XGBoost)FIB-4 (age, AST, ALT, PLT) + LSM + SSMSerological testing + TECompensated cirrhosis (predominantly HBV-related)Training: 0.927; validation 1: 0.919; validation 2: 0.902Etiological selection bias; lack of long-term prognostic data; relatively low interpretability of XGBoost black-box model
LSM + SSM logistic regression modelLSM, SSMTEViral cirrhosis (HBV/HCV)Derivation: 0.965; external validation: 1.000Restricted to viral cirrhosis; small total sample size (n = 200); no long-term follow-up data
Multi-organ CT radiomics SVM model2358 radiomic features extracted from portal venous-phase CT (liver, spleen, and esophagus 5 cm above the cardia)Multislice spiral CT (portal venous phase enhancement)Mixed-etiology cirrhosisTraining: 0.983; internal validation: 0.834; external validation: 0.736Marked performance degradation in external validation; complex radiomic feature extraction; requires dedicated software and trained personnel
Meta-analysis of SSM aloneSSMUltrasound elastography (TE/SWE) + magnetic resonance elastography0.83Significant between-study heterogeneity; low positive predictive value (54%); positive results still require confirmatory endoscopy
Meta-analysis comparing CT, LSM, and MRIHead-to-head comparison of diagnostic performance between CT, LSM, and MRIMultislice spiral CT + TE + MRIAll cirrhosis subtypesCT: 0.94; LSM: 0.85; MRI: 0.83Indirect comparison between studies; moderate heterogeneity; no standardized universal diagnostic threshold provided


Write to the Help Desk