2022
DOI: 10.1016/s0168-8278(22)01740-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Retrospective AI-based measurement of NASH histology (AIM-NASH) analysis of biopsies from Phase 2 study of Resmetirom confirms significant treatment-induced changes in histologic features of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This agreement was lower than has been observed between liver pathology experts, who had moderate-to-excellent agreement for the stage of fibrosis, steatosis, and hepatocyte ballooning, reflecting the consistency of assessment when performed by experienced pathologists 1,3,15,18 . The agreement in this analysis is also lower than the agreement measured for the same AI algorithms against pathologist consensus scoring in other clinical trial settings 19 . The higher variability between ML and pathologists in this study may be a result of multiple different factors, including the different analysis methods used by ML and pathologists to assess the histological features, and the quality of the slides impacting both ML and pathologist assessment.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 67%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This agreement was lower than has been observed between liver pathology experts, who had moderate-to-excellent agreement for the stage of fibrosis, steatosis, and hepatocyte ballooning, reflecting the consistency of assessment when performed by experienced pathologists 1,3,15,18 . The agreement in this analysis is also lower than the agreement measured for the same AI algorithms against pathologist consensus scoring in other clinical trial settings 19 . The higher variability between ML and pathologists in this study may be a result of multiple different factors, including the different analysis methods used by ML and pathologists to assess the histological features, and the quality of the slides impacting both ML and pathologist assessment.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 67%
“… 1 , 3 , 15 , 18 The agreement in this analysis is also lower than the agreement measured for the same AI algorithms against pathologist consensus scoring in other clinical trial settings. 19 The higher variability between ML and pathologists in this study may be a result of multiple different factors, including the different analysis methods used by ML and pathologists to assess the histological features, and the quality of the slides impacting both ML and pathologist assessment. Generally, the ML-derived categorical assessment tended to assess the baseline fibrosis stage and the grades for steatosis, lobular inflammation, and hepatocyte ballooning higher than the pathologists’ scores at baseline.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…In addition, the AIM-NASH algorithm alone has also demonstrated to either recapitulate or demonstrate that primary efficacy results were met across several trials and drug candidates (semaglutide, pegbelfermin, resmetirom [25][26][27][28]). In a phase 2b study for pegbelfermin AIM-NASH revealed a statistically significant difference in the proportion of primary endpoint responders in treatment vs. placebo groups, whereas the central pathologist scoring did not reveal a statistically significant difference [26].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a phase 2b study for pegbelfermin AIM-NASH revealed a statistically significant difference in the proportion of primary endpoint responders in treatment vs. placebo groups, whereas the central pathologist scoring did not reveal a statistically significant difference [26]. In a phase 2b study for resmetirom, all endpoints met via both individual manual readers were also met by AIM-NASH [27]. In the phase 3 study for resmetirom, for both MASH resolution and fibrosis improvement endpoint, the percentage of patients that responded were comparable when assessed by AIM-NASH or manual pathology assessment [28].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%