Machine Learning in Predicting the Risk of Esophagogastric Variceal Bleeding Among Patients With Liver Cirrhosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Patients with liver cirrhosis |
| I — Intervention | Machine learning prediction models |
| C — Comparator | Not applicable (systematic review of prediction models) |
| O — Outcomes | Prediction of esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) and esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EGVB) - measured by c-index, sensitivity, and specificity |
Bottom Line
This systematic review demonstrates that machine learning models show promising accuracy for predicting variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis patients, with c-indices of 0.85 for esophageal and 0.89 for esophagogastric variceal bleeding. However, the evidence base remains limited with only 21 studies and significant methodological concerns. The high sensitivity (93%) but modest specificity (66%) for esophageal variceal bleeding prediction suggests these models may be better suited for ruling out rather than confirming bleeding risk. Endoscopic feature-based models performed best (c-index 0.97) but this finding requires cautious interpretation given the small number of studies. While these results are encouraging for risk stratification in cirrhosis management, the authors appropriately conclude that larger validation studies are needed before clinical implementation. Australian clinicians should await further evidence and regulatory guidance before incorporating these tools into routine practice.
Key Findings
P Value: Not reported for pooled analyses
Effect Size: EVB c-index: 0.85 (95% CI 0.77-0.92); EGVB c-index: 0.89 (95% CI 0.85-0.94)
Primary Outcome: Prediction accuracy for esophageal and esophagogastric variceal bleeding
Nnt Or Sensitivity: EVB sensitivity: 0.93 (95% CI 0.87-0.96), specificity: 0.66 (95% CI 0.46-0.82); EGVB sensitivity: 0.77 (95% CI 0.66-0.85), specificity: 0.81 (95% CI 0.67-0.90)
Confidence Interval: 95% confidence intervals provided for all pooled estimates
Clinical Application
Limited by need for specialised machine learning infrastructure and validation in local populations Relevant to Australian gastroenterology and hepatology practice, though implementation would require TGA consideration for clinical decision support tools and integration with existing cirrhosis management pathways Patients with established liver cirrhosis requiring risk stratification for variceal bleeding
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liver cirrhosis (LC) can lead to several complications. Esophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) and esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EGVB) are particularly severe, leading to a high risk of mortality. Early identification of esophageal varices and esophagogastric varices is essential. Several studies have constructed prediction models for EVB and EGVB in patients with LC. However, robust systematic evidence to prove their performance is lacking. OBJECTIVE: We included original studies that developed prediction models for esophageal or gastric variceal bleeding in patients with LC under different modeling variables. This study aimed to review the predictive performance of various models for EVB or EGVB in patients with LC, providing insights into the development or updating of simplified scoring tools in the future. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to August 21, 2024, to collect original full-text studies on machine learning (ML) in the prediction of EVB and EGVB in patients with LC. The models were evaluated using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Subgroup analyses were carried out based on the modeling variables. RESULTS: In total, 21 studies were included, with 7011 patients with LC, among whom 1412 (20.14%) developed EVB and 733 (10.45%) developed EGVB. The meta-analysis results suggested that the pooled c-index, sensitivity, and specificity of the prediction model for predicting EVB in the validation set were 0.85 (95% CI 0.77-0.92), 0.93 (95% CI 0.87-0.96), and 0.66 (95% CI 0.46-0.82), respectively. The pooled c-index, sensitivity, and specificity of the prediction model for predicting EGVB in the validation set were 0.89 (95% CI 0.85-0.94), 0.77 (95% CI 0.66-0.85), and 0.81 (95% CI 0.67-0.90), respectively. The subgroup analysis based on modeling variables revealed that, for predicting EVB, the c-index in the validation set was 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.88) for models based on clinical features, 0.82 (95% CI 0.69-0.96) for radiomics-based models, 0.78 (95% CI 0.67-0.89) for models based on radiomics and clinical features, and 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-1.00) for models based on endoscopic features. Subgroup analyses based on modeling variables revealed that, for predicting EGVB, the c-index in the validation set was 0.91 (95% CI 0.86-0.96) for models based on clinical features and 0.85 (95% CI 0.75-0.96) for models based on radiomics and clinical features. CONCLUSIONS: ML methods are feasible for predicting EVB and EGVB in patients with LC. Nevertheless, the number of included original studies is limited. In the future, more studies with larger sample sizes are needed to promote the application of ML in the early assessment of EVB and EGVB in patients with LC in clinical practice.
References
- 1.Lian, Y., Qiu, X., Wang, G., Liu, N., Zhao, J., Song, S., Wang, S., & Sun, M. (2026). Machine Learning in Predicting the Risk of Esophagogastric Variceal Bleeding Among Patients With Liver Cirrhosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.2196/78203
Related Research
The American journal of pathology
An Integrated Machine Learning and Genomic Framework for Precise Detection of Gastric Cancer
3 Aug 2026
Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association
Artificial Intelligence Tools for Gastrointestinal Research: A Practical Guide
2 Aug 2026
Current opinion in critical care
Smart feeding: the role of artificial intelligence and integrated nutrition platforms in the ICU
2 Aug 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service