BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Correspondence
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Hepatol. Apr 27, 2026; 18(4): 114861
Published online Apr 27, 2026. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v18.i4.114861
Table 1 Comparison of existing prognostic models in acute-on-chronic liver failure and alpha-fetoprotein dynamics
Prognostic tool
Main inputs
Strengths
Limitations
Reflects regenerative potential
CTP scoreHepatic encephalopathy, ascites, total bilirubin, albumin, prothrombin timeSimpleSubjective, grading stenosis and lack of corresponding weights for each indicatorLow
MELD scoreBilirubin, INR, creatinineWidely validated; useful for transplant allocation; objective indicators; reliable indicators; easy to obtainSome clinical factors are not taken into accountLow
SOFASix organ systems: Respiration; coagulation; liver; cardiovascular; renal, CNSSimple; continuous monitoring; widely used in ICUPrimarily reflects organ injury, not liver regenerationLow
COSSH-ACLF scoreBilirubin, INR, creatinine, neutrophil count, organ failuresDeveloped from HBV-ACLF cohort; good regional fitLimited generalizability; retrospectiveLow-moderate
CLIF-C ACLF scoreBilirubin, creatinine, INR, organ failuresTailored for ACLF; good short-termRequires multiple parameters; complexLow-moderate
AARC scoreBilirubin, INR, lactate, creatinine, encephalopathyUseful in Asian cohorts; emphasizes metabolic stressLimited global validation; staticLow-moderate
AFP dynamicsBaseline AFP + serial changeInexpensive; widely available; reflects regenerationConfounded by etiology, necrosis, malignancy; not yet standardizedHigh