Back

A Comparison of Diagnostic Models and Prognostic Scores of ACLF: Towards Global Harmonization

Hu, M.; Luo, J.; Verma, N.; Garg, P.; Taneja, S.; Carbonell-Asins, J. A.; Ballester, M. P.; Qi, T.; Jameie-Oskooei, S.; Cai, Q.; Liang, X.; Li, J.; Wu, T.; Li, J.; Li, P.; Zhou, Q.; Xin, J.; Shi, D.; Jiang, J.; Qiang, W.; Hong, C.; Chen, X.; Zhu, B.; Feng, T.; Zheng, J.; Huang, Y.; Ye, F.; Lin, B.; Chen, J.; Mookerjee, R. P.; Huang, Y.; You, S.; Engelmann, C.; Chen, Y.; Duseja, A.; Li, J.; Jalan, R.

2026-04-30 gastroenterology
10.64898/2026.04.29.26352045 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background and AimsAcute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is associated with high short-term mortality, but substantial heterogeneity among existing diagnostic and prognostic models results in inconsistent patient identification and risk assessment. We conducted a systematic head-to-head comparison of major ACLF diagnostic and prognostic models to evaluate concordance, short-term mortality prediction and clinical utility, with the goal of informing harmonization of ACLF assessment. MethodsWe analysed 3,370 patients with acute decompensation of cirrhosis in the COSSH cohort, with external validation in an independent Ambi-Spective cohort from India (n=2,055). Five ACLF diagnostic models were evaluated for identification of patients at risk of 28-day mortality. Reclassification was assessed using net reclassification improvement. Prognostic scores were compared using concordance index, integrated discrimination improvement, calibration, and decision-curve analysis. ResultsDiagnostic frameworks identified markedly different proportions of ACLF. A-TANGO and COSSH-ACLF classified the largest high-risk populations while maintaining substantial short-term mortality and balanced sensitivity-specificity profiles. Compared with COSSH-ACLF, A-TANGO improved net reclassification by 7.7%, with further gains versus EASL-CLIF (11.8%), APASL-ACLF (36.4%), and NACSELD-ACLF (45.9%). In the external cohort, A-TANGO and COSSH-ACLF showed similar discrimination and identified comparable proportions of patients. Combined application of the two models delineated three clinically meaningful strata, identifying a discordant intermediate-risk group with approximately 11% 28-day mortality. Among prognostic scores, COSSH-ACLF II and A-TANGO OF scores demonstrated strong and complementary performance across cohorts. ConclusionsOutcome-anchored ACLF definitions converge in identifying patients at highest short-term risk across diverse populations. Alignment between A-TANGO and COSSH-ACLF, together with identification of an intermediate-risk phenotype, supports a data-driven framework for improving consistency and advancing global harmonization of ACLF diagnosis and risk stratification.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Hepatology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.4%
2
Gut
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.2%
3
Hepatology Communications
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.2%
4
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 34%
4.3%
6
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
4.3%
7
Gastroenterology
40 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.6%
8
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.0%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.3%
10
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.3%
11
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
12
Journal of Hepatology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
13
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.9%
14
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.6%
15
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
16
American Journal of Gastroenterology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
17
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
18
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
19
Physiological Measurement
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
20
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
21
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
22
Modern Pathology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
23
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
24
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
25
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%