GastroAGI Logo
OverviewBlogsAbout
Trending TopicsDaily BriefConference

116 calculators match

Most used

21
MELD-NaAssesses the severity of chronic liver diseaseChild-Pugh ScoreAssesses the prognosis of chronic liver disease, mainly cirrhosisFIB-4 IndexLiver fibrosis scoring indexAPRIAST to platelet ratio — liver fibrosisMaddrey's DFAlcoholic hepatitis severityGlasgow-BlatchfordUpper GI bleed risk stratificationGAHSGlasgow alcoholic hepatitis scoreMontreal IBDIBD classification — CD & UCMayo ScoreUlcerative colitis activityBISAP ScoreBedside index for severity of pancreatitisCLIF-SOFAOrgan failure scoring in cirrhosisAlcohol ContentStandard drinks & alcohol grams calculatorAARC-ACLFAcute-on-chronic liver failure gradePELD / CR ScorePediatric end-stage liver diseaseHarvey-BradshawCrohn's disease activity indexCTSICT severity index — pancreatitisRockall ScoreGI bleed rebleeding & mortality riskCAGEAlcohol use disorder screening (4 questions)MELD 3.0Updated MELD — sex-inclusive formulaAUDIT ScoreAlcohol use disorders identification testVOCAL-Penn ScorePost-operative mortality risk in cirrhosis surgery

Liver & Cirrhosis

17
ALBI GradeAlbumin-bilirubin liver function grade in HCCUKELD ScoreUK model for end-stage liver diseaseMELD-XIMELD excluding INR — for anticoagulated patientsWest Haven CriteriaHepatic encephalopathy gradingMilan CriteriaLiver transplant eligibility in hepatocellular carcinomaLI-RADS v2018 (CT/MRI)Liver observation category from size, APHE and major featuresBCLC StagingHepatocellular carcinoma stage and treatment allocationSimplified AIH CriteriaSimplified criteria for autoimmune hepatitisRevised Original AIH ScoreIAIHG 1999 comprehensive autoimmune hepatitis scoreSAAGSerum-ascites albumin gradient — cause of ascitesR FactorHepatocellular vs cholestatic pattern in liver injuryCLIF-C ACLFMortality prediction in acute-on-chronic liver failureKing's College CriteriaTransplant criteria in acute liver failureGALAD ScoreHCC detection from gender, age, AFP-L3, AFP and DCPMetroticket 2.0AFP-adjusted up-to-seven for HCC transplant eligibilityRUCAMCausality in drug- and herb-induced liver injuryBaveno VII CriteriacACLD, CSPH and sparing screening endoscopy

Fibrosis & MASLD

8
NAFLD Fibrosis ScoreAdvanced fibrosis probability in MASLD/NAFLDBARD ScoreBMI, AST/ALT ratio, diabetes — MASLD fibrosisFatty Liver IndexPredicts hepatic steatosis from routine labsFibrotic NASH Index (FNI)At-risk NASH probability from AST, HbA1c and HDLNAFLD Activity Score (NAS)Histologic activity grade — steatosis, inflammation, ballooningMEFIB IndexMRE + FIB-4 rule for significant fibrosis (≥F2) in MASLDFAST ScoreFibroScan-AST — at-risk NASH from LSM, CAP and ASTSAFE ScoreSteatosis-Associated Fibrosis Estimator for MASLD in primary care

Pancreas & Biliary

8
Ranson's CriteriaAcute pancreatitis severity at 48 hoursGlasgow-Imrie CriteriaAcute pancreatitis severity — the PANCREAS criteriaHAPSHarmless acute pancreatitis scoreTokyo Guidelines — CholangitisTG18 diagnosis and severity grade for acute cholangitisTokyo Guidelines — CholecystitisTG18 diagnosis and severity grade for acute cholecystitisBiliary Pain (Rome IV)Rome IV — defining biliary-type pain before interventionFunctional Pancreatic SODRome IV — pancreatic sphincter of Oddi disorderRevised Atlanta ClassificationAcute pancreatitis severity — mild, moderately severe, severe

IBD

9
Truelove & Witts CriteriaAcute severe ulcerative colitis — admission decisionUCEISUlcerative colitis endoscopic index of severitySCCAISimple clinical colitis activity index — symptoms onlyCDAICrohn's disease activity index — the trial standardSES-CDEndoscopic severity in Crohn's diseasePUCAIPaediatric ulcerative colitis activity indexTravis (Oxford) CriteriaDay 3 colectomy risk in acute severe ulcerative colitisHo IndexDay 3 steroid failure risk in acute severe ulcerative colitisRutgeerts ScorePostoperative Crohn's recurrence at ileocolonoscopy

GI Bleeding

7
EVendo ScorePredicts oesophageal varices needing treatmentForrest ClassificationPeptic ulcer bleeding — rebleeding risk at endoscopyAIMS65 ScoreUpper GI bleed mortality — five bedside criteriaOakland ScoreSafe-discharge risk for acute lower GI bleedingABC ScoreAge, blood tests, comorbidities — GI bleed mortalitySarin ClassificationEndoscopic classification of gastric varicesEGUS (Gastric Ulcer)Malignancy risk in a gastric ulcer, and who needs repeat endoscopy

Alcohol

2
ABIC ScoreAge, bilirubin, INR, creatinine — alcoholic hepatitisLille ModelSteroid response at day 7 in alcoholic hepatitis

Upper GI

4
Chicago Classification v4.0Oesophageal motility pattern from high-resolution manometryLA Classification (Oesophagitis)Los Angeles grade A–D for erosive oesophagitisPrague C & M CriteriaCircumferential and maximal extent of Barrett's oesophagusEREFS (Eosinophilic Oesophagitis)Endoscopic reference score — oedema, rings, exudates, furrows, stricture

Colorectal

3
Boston Bowel Prep ScaleColonoscopy preparation adequacy by segmentStool Osmotic GapOsmotic vs secretory diarrhoea from stool electrolytesATLAS Score (C. difficile)Predicted response to therapy in Clostridioides difficile infection

Functional GI

37
Bristol Stool ScaleStool form types 1–7 and colonic transitRome IV Criteria for IBSIrritable bowel syndrome diagnosis and subtypeFunctional ConstipationRome IV — two of six items, IBS excludedOpioid-Induced ConstipationRome IV — constipation tied to opioid therapyFunctional DiarrhoeaRome IV — loose stools without predominant painFunctional Bloating / DistensionRome IV — bloating without other bowel disorder criteriaUnspecified Functional Bowel DisorderRome IV — bowel symptoms fitting no other categoryCentrally Mediated Abdominal Pain (CAPS)Rome IV — continuous pain unrelated to gut eventsNarcotic Bowel SyndromeRome IV — opioid-induced hyperalgesia of the gutFaecal Incontinence (Rome IV)Rome IV — the criteria, and why nobody is askedFunctional Anorectal PainLevator ani, unspecified pain and proctalgia fugaxFunctional Defecation DisordersRome IV — dyssynergia and inadequate propulsionInfant RegurgitationRome IV — the happy spitter, and the alarm features that rule it outInfant ColicRome IV — recurrent unexplained crying in a well infant under 5 monthsInfant DyscheziaRome IV — straining before a soft stool, and why not to intervenePaediatric Functional ConstipationRome IV — two of six over one month, with overflow soiling as a criterionToddler's DiarrhoeaRome IV functional diarrhoea of childhood — painless, thriving childPaediatric Cyclic Vomiting SyndromeRome IV — both age bands, with different criteria for eachPaediatric Rumination SyndromeRome IV — infant and child/adolescent criteriaFunctional Nausea & Vomiting (Children)Rome IV — two separate disorders that can be met togetherAerophagiaRome IV — distension that increases through the dayPaediatric Functional DyspepsiaRome IV — four times a month, with PDS and EPS subtypingPaediatric Irritable Bowel SyndromeRome IV — plus the constipation clause clinicians missAbdominal MigraineRome IV — stereotypical incapacitating episodes weeks apartFunctional Abdominal Pain — NOSRome IV — the residual category, reached after the other threeNonretentive Faecal IncontinenceRome IV — soiling without retention, where laxatives make it worseFunctional DyspepsiaRome IV — with PDS and EPS subtypingRumination SyndromeRome IV — effortless regurgitation without retchingCyclic Vomiting SyndromeRome IV — stereotypical episodic vomitingCannabinoid HyperemesisRome IV — CVS pattern relieved by cannabis cessationChronic Nausea & VomitingRome IV — chronic nausea and vomiting syndromeBelching DisordersRome IV — supragastric vs gastric belchingFunctional HeartburnRome IV — heartburn with normal acid exposureReflux HypersensitivityRome IV — normal acid exposure, positive symptom associationFunctional Chest PainRome IV — non-cardiac, non-reflux chest painGlobusRome IV — painless lump-in-throat sensationFunctional DysphagiaRome IV — dysphagia with normal endoscopy and manometry
  1. Calculators
  2. /
  3. ABIC Score
Alcohol

ABIC Score

Age, bilirubin, INR, creatinine — alcoholic hepatitis

When to use
Calculate ABIC at admission in a patient with established alcohol-related hepatitis to stratify their risk of dying at 90 days and one year, and to frame the conversation about how aggressive management should be. Its three-tier output makes it particularly useful where a binary severity score has already been applied and the question is what to do with a patient who is severe but not obviously moribund. It is a baseline prognostic score, not a treatment-response measure: it uses admission values only and cannot tell you whether corticosteroids are working, which is the question the Lille model answers at day 7. It also assumes the diagnosis is already made, and says nothing about whether jaundice in a heavy drinker is alcohol-related hepatitis rather than another cause.
Why use it
Because alcohol-related hepatitis is not a two-state disease, and the scores that dominated practice treated it as one. Maddrey's discriminant function draws a line at 32 and asks only whether a patient is severe; that is sufficient to open the steroid conversation but useless for distinguishing a patient with a 70% chance of surviving 90 days from one with a 25% chance, even though both sit above the threshold. ABIC was built specifically to provide that gradation, using variables available in any hospital at admission, and it does so with an AUC of 0.82. The inclusion of age is also more than statistical bookkeeping — it is the only one of the four that cannot change, and it explains why two patients with identical liver chemistry can carry very different prognoses.
Formula, evidence and interpretation

About the Age, Serum Bilirubin, INR, Serum Creatinine (ABIC) Score for Alcohol-Related Hepatitis

Four routine values — age, bilirubin, INR and creatinine — sort patients with alcohol-related hepatitis into three distinct prognostic groups rather than the single severe/not-severe split most other scores offer. ABIC = (age × 0.1) + (bilirubin × 0.08) + (INR × 0.8) + (creatinine × 0.3), with cut-offs at 6.71 and 9.0. In the derivation cohort those bands corresponded to 90-day survival of 100%, 70% and 25%, and to one-year survival of 97.1%, 64.3% and 33.3%, with an area under the curve of 0.82 for 90-day mortality. The middle band is what distinguishes it: identifying an intermediate-risk group is precisely what a binary threshold like Maddrey's 32 cannot do.

On this page

  • Formula
  • Interpreting the result
  • Inputs
  • What it returns
  • How it is calculated
  • Facts & figures
  • Evidence
  • How it compares
  • Pearls & pitfalls
  • Critical actions
  • Why it exists
  • About the creator
  • Limitations
  • If you are the patient
  • FAQ
  • Related calculators
  • References

Formula

ABIC = (age × 0.1) + (bilirubin mg/dL × 0.08) + (INR × 0.8) + (creatinine mg/dL × 0.3)
age
In years, weighted 0.1.
bilirubin
Total bilirubin in mg/dL, weighted 0.08.
INR
International normalised ratio, weighted 0.8.
creatinine
Serum creatinine in mg/dL, weighted 0.3.
  • This is a plain linear sum with no logarithms, which makes ABIC unusually easy to compute at the bedside compared with the MELD family.
  • Bilirubin and creatinine must be in mg/dL. The coefficients were published for those units, and SI values give a badly wrong score.
  • The two cut-offs, 6.71 and 9.00, are the published Kaplan-Meier-derived boundaries — they are not rounded, and rounding them shifts patients between risk groups.
  • Age contributes up to about 6–7 points on its own in an older patient, so it can dominate the total; a high score in an elderly patient does not necessarily indicate severe liver injury.

Interpreting the result

A score below 6.71 identified a group in which survival at 90 days was complete in the derivation cohort and 97.1% at one year — a genuinely low-risk group in a disease with a fearsome overall reputation. Between 6.71 and 9.00, roughly 70% survived to 90 days and 64.3% to one year, which is the band where management intensity and the balance of risks around immunosuppression matter most. At 9.00 or above, only about 25% survived 90 days and 33.3% reached one year, and that magnitude of risk should be reflected explicitly in discussions with the patient and family, in early consideration of transplant candidacy where appropriate, and in decisions about ceilings of care. The fact that the same thresholds stratify both 90-day and one-year mortality means a single admission calculation carries information well beyond the index illness — surviving the acute episode does not reset the risk.

ScoreBandWhat it meansAction
< 6.71Low risk100% survival at 90 days and 97.1% at one year in the derivation cohortSupportive management, nutrition, and abstinence intervention; the prognosis of the acute episode is good
6.71 to < 9.00Intermediate risk70% survival at 90 days and 64.3% at one yearActive management with close monitoring; assess corticosteroid candidacy and reassess response at day 7 with the Lille model
≥ 9.00High risk25% survival at 90 days and 33.3% at one yearEscalate care planning, discuss prognosis explicitly, consider transplant candidacy where appropriate, and address ceilings of care

What the ABIC Score needs (4 inputs)

Age (years)
Multiplied by 0.1 — the only fixed, non-modifiable term in the score, and the reason older patients start from a worse baseline.
Total bilirubin (mg/dL)
Multiplied by 0.08. Because bilirubin values in alcohol-related hepatitis are often high, this small coefficient still contributes substantially.
INR
Multiplied by 0.8 — the largest coefficient, reflecting hepatic synthetic failure.
Creatinine (mg/dL)
Multiplied by 0.3, capturing the renal dysfunction that drives much of the mortality in this condition.

Units. ABIC's coefficients assume mg/dL. Convert first if your laboratory reports SI units: bilirubin µmol/L ÷ 17.1 = mg/dL; creatinine µmol/L ÷ 88.4 = mg/dL. This calculator takes mg/dL directly.

What it returns

ABIC score
A continuous value, typically between about 5 and 12.
Risk group
Low (< 6.71), intermediate (6.71 to < 9.00) or high (≥ 9.00) risk of death at 90 days and one year.

How it is calculated

Dominguez and colleagues prospectively enrolled patients with biopsy-proven alcohol-related hepatitis between 2000 and 2006 and evaluated biochemical, clinical, portal haemodynamic and histological parameters against 90-day mortality using Cox regression. Notably, the haemodynamic and histological variables did not survive into the final model: age, bilirubin, creatinine and INR independently predicted death, and the score was built from admission values alone. Kaplan-Meier analysis then identified two cut-offs, 6.71 and 9.0, that separated three groups with clearly different survival, and the same boundaries were found to stratify one-year mortality as well as 90-day. The model was then confirmed in an independent prospective cohort.

Facts & figures

Survival by ABIC risk group (derivation cohort)
ABICRisk group90-day survivalOne-year survival
< 6.71Low100%97.1%
6.71 to < 9.00Intermediate70%64.3%
≥ 9.00High25%33.3%

Area under the curve for 90-day mortality was 0.82. The same cut-offs stratified one-year mortality, so the score's prognostic reach extends beyond the acute episode.

Where ABIC sits among alcohol-related hepatitis scores
ScoreTimingOutput
Maddrey's DFAdmissionBinary: severe at ≥ 32
GAHSAdmissionSteroid benefit at ≥ 9
ABICAdmissionThree risk tiers (6.71, 9.0)
LilleDay 7 of steroidsBinary: non-responder at ≥ 0.45

ABIC and Lille are complementary rather than competing — one is static and taken at baseline, the other dynamic and taken after a week of treatment. Combining a static score with Lille predicted survival better than either alone.

Evidence

Derivation — Dominguez

2008 · n = 103

103 patients with biopsy-proven alcohol-related hepatitis prospectively enrolled between 2000 and 2006, with biochemical, clinical, portal haemodynamic and histological parameters assessed by Cox regression against 90-day mortality. Age, bilirubin, creatinine and INR were the independent predictors retained.

Area under the curve 0.82 for 90-day mortality. Cut-offs of 6.71 and 9.0 identified low, intermediate and high-risk groups with 90-day survival of 100%, 70% and 25%, and the same thresholds also stratified one-year mortality (97.1%, 64.3% and 33.3%).

Confirmatory cohort — Dominguez

2008 · n = 80

An independent prospective cohort of patients with alcohol-related hepatitis, used to confirm that the ABIC cut-offs reproduced the same three-tier stratification of 90-day and one-year mortality.

Reproduced the risk stratification found in the derivation cohort, supporting ABIC as a tool for prognostic stratification at both 90 days and one year.

Joint static-dynamic model — Louvet

2015 · n = 538

Patients with severe alcohol-related hepatitis treated with corticosteroids, drawn from databases in France and the United Kingdom (derivation n = 538), with validation in trial cohorts from the United States, France, Korea and Belgium (n = 604). Three joint-effect models were compared: Maddrey+Lille, MELD+Lille and ABIC+Lille.

Combining a static score such as ABIC with the dynamic Lille model predicted survival at two and six months significantly better than either static or dynamic models alone, in both derivation and validation cohorts.

How it compares

ABIC Score vs Maddrey's Discriminant Function

Maddrey's DF answers whether a patient has severe disease at all; ABIC answers how severe, splitting that severe group into three tiers with 90-day survival of 100%, 70% and 25%.

Maddrey's discriminant function exists for one purpose — the threshold of 32 that opens the corticosteroid conversation — and it does that job with two laboratory values. ABIC uses four and produces a gradient instead of a line, which is what makes it useful once a patient is already known to be severe. They are best used in sequence rather than as alternatives: Maddrey's DF to establish severity and steroid candidacy, ABIC to describe the risk the patient actually faces.

Open the Maddrey's Discriminant Function calculator →Dominguez M, Rincón D, Abraldes JG, et al. A new scoring system for prognostic stratification of patients with alcoholic hepatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(11):2747-2756.

ABIC Score vs Lille model

ABIC and Lille answer different questions at different times — ABIC stratifies baseline risk at admission, Lille measures corticosteroid response at day 7 — and combining a static score with Lille predicts survival better than either alone.

ABIC is static: it uses admission values and cannot register whether treatment is working. Lille is dynamic, requiring both a day-0 and a day-7 bilirubin, and exists specifically to identify non-responders early. Louvet and colleagues tested joint-effect models pairing Lille with Maddrey's DF, MELD and ABIC across a derivation cohort of 538 and a validation cohort of 604, and found the combinations predicted two- and six-month survival significantly better than static or dynamic models used in isolation.

Open the Lille model calculator →Louvet A, Labreuche J, Artru F, et al. Combining data from liver disease scoring systems better predicts outcomes of patients with alcoholic hepatitis. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(2):398-406.

ABIC Score vs Glasgow Alcoholic Hepatitis Score

GAHS is built to predict who benefits from corticosteroids; ABIC is built to predict who survives — overlapping inputs, but they are answering different clinical questions.

GAHS combines age, white cell count, urea, prothrombin time ratio and bilirubin, and its threshold of 9 identifies patients in whom steroids improved survival while those below it derived no benefit. ABIC shares age, bilirubin and a coagulation measure but substitutes creatinine for urea and white cell count, and its output is a three-tier mortality estimate rather than a treatment-benefit signal. Using both is reasonable: GAHS to inform whether to give steroids, ABIC to describe the prognosis irrespective of that decision.

Open the Glasgow Alcoholic Hepatitis Score calculator →

Pearls & pitfalls

  • Age is the term you cannot treat. In an older patient it can push the score toward the intermediate band on its own, so a raised ABIC is not automatically evidence of severe liver injury — inspect the components.
  • Bilirubin and creatinine must be in mg/dL; SI units with the published coefficients produce a wildly incorrect score.
  • The cut-offs are 6.71 and 9.00 exactly. Rounding 6.71 to 6.7 or 7 moves real patients between risk groups.
  • ABIC is a baseline score using admission values. It does not measure treatment response, and recalculating it at day 7 is not a substitute for the Lille model.
  • It presumes the diagnosis. Alcohol-related hepatitis is a clinical diagnosis with important mimics — biliary obstruction, sepsis, drug-induced liver injury — and ABIC will happily score any of them.
  • The same thresholds predict one-year as well as 90-day mortality, so a patient discharged after surviving the acute illness remains in the risk group the admission score assigned.

Critical actions

  • Confirm the diagnosis of alcohol-related hepatitis before acting on the score, and exclude biliary obstruction, sepsis and drug-induced liver injury.
  • Use ABIC to stratify baseline risk, then reassess corticosteroid response at day 7 with the Lille model rather than repeating ABIC.
  • Treat a high-risk score as a trigger for explicit prognostic conversation with the patient and family, and for early consideration of transplant candidacy where the patient may be eligible.
  • Address alcohol use directly in every risk group — abstinence is the single strongest determinant of long-term survival and is not captured anywhere in the score.
  • Attend to nutrition, infection screening and thiamine replacement, none of which the score measures but all of which alter outcome.

Why this score exists

The authors stated two aims — improving clinical management and facilitating clinical trials — and the second explains the design as much as the first. A binary severity threshold makes trial recruitment crude: every patient above Maddrey's 32 is enrolled as though equivalent, when their actual mortality risk spans from moderate to overwhelming, which dilutes any treatment signal. A score that separates three tiers allows stratified randomisation and more honest subgroup analysis. It is also telling what the derivation discarded: portal haemodynamic and histological variables were measured and assessed, and did not earn a place, meaning a liver biopsy and hepatic venous pressure measurement added nothing to four numbers available from a routine admission blood panel.

About the creator

  • Marlene Dominguez

    First author, 2008 derivation study

    Derived the ABIC score in a prospective cohort of biopsy-proven alcohol-related hepatitis, identifying age, bilirubin, INR and creatinine as the independent predictors of 90-day mortality.

  • Ramón Bataller

    Senior author

    Led the Barcelona group's programme of work on alcohol-related liver disease from which the score emerged.

Limitations

  • The derivation cohort was small — 103 biopsy-proven patients from a single prospective series — so the precise survival figures attached to each band should be read as estimates rather than exact probabilities.
  • Age contributes a fixed, unmodifiable share of the score, which means the bands blend liver-disease severity with chronological age and can misrepresent a young patient with fulminant disease or an older patient with milder injury.
  • It uses admission values only and carries no information about treatment response, so it cannot guide the day-7 decision that most changes management.
  • It contains no measure of infection, encephalopathy or gastrointestinal bleeding, all of which drive mortality in this population.
  • Abstinence — the dominant determinant of survival beyond the acute episode — is not in the model, despite the score being used to predict one-year mortality.
  • The published survival figures come from a cohort recruited between 2000 and 2006, before current practice in early transplant assessment for alcohol-related hepatitis.

If you are the patient

The ABIC score helps doctors estimate how serious an episode of alcohol-related hepatitis is, and what the outlook is over the next three months and the next year. It uses your age together with three blood results: bilirubin (which reflects jaundice), INR (a clotting test) and creatinine (which reflects kidney function). The score puts people into one of three groups — lower, middle or higher risk — rather than simply 'mild' or 'severe', which helps the team judge how intensive treatment needs to be and what to expect. Because your age counts toward the score, an older person can have a higher number without their liver being more damaged. The score is worked out when you are admitted; if you are given steroid treatment, a different score called the Lille model is used after a week to check whether it is helping. Whatever the score, stopping drinking completely is the single most important thing that improves long-term survival, and that is not something the score can measure.

Frequently asked questions

What is the ABIC score?#

A prognostic score for alcohol-related hepatitis calculated as (age × 0.1) + (bilirubin in mg/dL × 0.08) + (INR × 0.8) + (creatinine in mg/dL × 0.3). It stratifies risk of death at both 90 days and one year into three groups.

What are the ABIC score cut-offs?#

6.71 and 9.00. Below 6.71 is low risk, 6.71 to under 9.00 intermediate, and 9.00 or above high risk. The values are not rounded, and rounding them reassigns patients between groups.

What survival do the ABIC bands predict?#

In the derivation cohort, 90-day survival was 100% in the low-risk group, 70% in the intermediate group and 25% in the high-risk group. One-year survival was 97.1%, 64.3% and 33.3% respectively.

How does ABIC differ from Maddrey's discriminant function?#

Maddrey's DF is binary — a value of 32 or above defines severe disease and opens the corticosteroid conversation. ABIC produces three risk tiers, so it grades severity within the group Maddrey's DF has already flagged as severe.

Can ABIC tell whether corticosteroids are working?#

No. It uses admission values only and is a static baseline score. The Lille model, calculated after seven days of corticosteroids, is the instrument for assessing treatment response — and combining a static score such as ABIC with Lille predicts survival better than either alone.

Which units does ABIC need?#

Bilirubin and creatinine must be in mg/dL, matching the units the coefficients were published for. Using µmol/L values will produce a grossly inflated score.

Related calculators

  • Maddrey's DF — Alcoholic hepatitis severity
  • GAHS — Glasgow alcoholic hepatitis score
  • Lille Model — Steroid response at day 7 in alcoholic hepatitis
  • MELD-Na — Assesses the severity of chronic liver disease

References

Original / primary reference

  1. Dominguez M, Rincón D, Abraldes JG, et al. A new scoring system for prognostic stratification of patients with alcoholic hepatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(11):2747-2756.

Validation and comparison

  1. Louvet A, Labreuche J, Artru F, et al. Combining data from liver disease scoring systems better predicts outcomes of patients with alcoholic hepatitis. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(2):398-406.
  2. Thursz MR, Richardson P, Allison M, et al. Prednisolone or pentoxifylline for alcoholic hepatitis. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(17):1619-1628.

Last updated July 30, 2026. Clinical knowledge base written and curated by GastroAGI Team from primary medical literature.

Written from primary literature and not yet independently clinically reviewed.

For use by qualified healthcare professionals. This calculator supports clinical judgement and does not replace it.