GastroAGI Logo
OverviewBlogsAbout
Trending TopicsConference
Topics/Artificial Intelligence /Artificial neural network-predicted PPG and HVPG with measured PPG in decompensated cirrhosis

Artificial neural network-predicted PPG and HVPG with measured PPG in decompensated cirrhosis

Clinical knowledge base curated and reviewed by GastroAGI TeamLast updated October 1, 2025

Quick Answer

The study compared the performance of artificial neural network (ANN)-predicted portal pressure gradient (PPG) and hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) with measured PPG in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Here's a detailed breakdown of the findings: ### **Correlation Results in Group A (Real-World Conditions):** - **HVPG vs.


The study compared the performance of artificial neural network (ANN)-predicted portal pressure gradient (PPG) and hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) with measured PPG in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Here's a detailed breakdown of the findings:

### **Correlation Results in Group A (Real-World Conditions):**

  • **HVPG vs. Measured PPG:** HVPG demonstrated negligible correlation with measured PPG (correlation coefficient r = 0.014). This indicates that HVPG is highly unreliable in estimating actual portal pressures in real-world conditions, likely due to the influence of hepatic venous collaterals.
  • **ANN-Predicted PPG vs. Measured PPG:** ANN-predicted PPG showed moderate correlation with measured PPG (r = 0.437, P < 0.001), suggesting that the ANN model provides a more accurate and consistent estimate of portal pressure compared to HVPG.

### **Agreement Analysis:**

  • Bland–Altman plots revealed that ANN-predicted PPG had **narrower limits of agreement** with measured PPG (−8.45 to 8.51 mmHg) compared to HVPG (−22.17 to 10.03 mmHg). This signifies that the ANN model is more precise and less prone to large deviations from actual portal pressure values.

### **Group B Findings (Optimized Conditions):**

  • In Group B, which excluded patients with a high coefficient of variation (>30%) to approximate optimized conditions:
  • **HVPG vs. Measured PPG:** HVPG showed moderate correlation (r = 0.457).
  • **ANN-Predicted PPG vs. Measured PPG:** ANN-predicted PPG demonstrated a slightly better correlation (r = 0.476).
  • This indicates that under optimized conditions, both methods perform comparably in estimating portal pressures.

### **Etiology Subgroup Findings:**

  • **Hepatitis B–Related Cirrhosis:** The ANN model significantly outperformed HVPG in hepatitis B–related cirrhosis, with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.716 for ANN-predicted PPG vs. r = 0.472 for HVPG.
  • **Alcohol-Related Cirrhosis:** HVPG performed better than ANN-predicted PPG in alcohol-related cirrhosis.
  • **Autoimmune Cirrhosis:** Both methods showed weak performance in autoimmune cirrhosis, indicating the need for further refinement in these specific cases.

### **Child–Pugh Subgroup Results:**

  • **Class A and B Patients (Mild to Moderate Cirrhosis):**
  • Both HVPG and ANN-predicted PPG correlated moderately with measured PPG, showing comparable accuracy in less severe stages of cirrhosis.
  • **Class C Patients (Severe Cirrhosis):**
  • ANN-predicted PPG maintained correlation with measured PPG even in severe cirrhosis cases.
  • HVPG completely failed to correlate with measured PPG in class C patients, highlighting its unreliability in advanced disease stages.

### **Clinical Relevance:**

  • ANN-predicted PPG offers a **stable and reliable estimate** of portal pressure in patients with venous collaterals or advanced disease, where HVPG often yields inaccurate results.
  • In real-world settings (Group A), HVPG significantly **underestimated PPG**, leading to potential clinical misinterpretations of portal pressure severity. In contrast, ANN-predicted values closely matched measured PPG, reducing diagnostic errors.

### **Advantages of ANN Method:**

  • **Noninvasive:** Unlike HVPG, which requires invasive procedures, the ANN model uses clinical and imaging data to predict PPG.
  • **Reproducible:** The ANN approach is less affected by procedural variability and anatomical complexities.
  • **Improved Accuracy:** Especially in complex clinical conditions like severe cirrhosis, the ANN model demonstrated superior agreement and precision compared to HVPG.

### **Limitations:**

  • The study was retrospective, which limits the statistical strength and generalizability of the findings.
  • Subgroup sizes were limited, particularly for alcohol-related and autoimmune cirrhosis, which may impact the reliability of results in these etiologies.
  • The study focused only on patients with decompensated cirrhosis, excluding compensated cases.

### **Conclusion:**

While HVPG remains the clinical gold standard, the ANN-predicted PPG demonstrated **superior stability, agreement, and practicality** under complex clinical conditions, making it a promising noninvasive complement for evaluating portal hypertension in cirrhosis patients. Future research should focus on validating the ANN model in prospective, multicenter studies across diverse etiologies and disease stages, including compensated cirrhosis.

Related Q&A

AI and U.S. Healthcare Costs: NEJM Catalyst | July 2026

Introduction: Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming healthcare through drug discovery, clinical decision support, remote monitoring, and administrative automation. While AI is widely expected to reduce healthcare costs, this perspective argues that current payment models and...

Large AI Models and Healthcare: Nature Medicine | June 2026

Introduction: Large frontier AI models such as GPT-5 and Gemini have achieved impressive results across numerous healthcare benchmarks. However, high benchmark scores alone may not reflect real-world clinical reliability. This study systematically evaluated the robustness...

AI Ethics From Silicon Valley to the Vatican: JAMA | July 2026

Introduction: Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming medicine, but its influence extends far beyond healthcare. This JAMA AI Conversations article explores how AI ethics has become a global societal issue, engaging technology leaders, policymakers, healthcare professionals,...

Physician-Complementing AI in Oncology: The ASCO Post | June 2026

Introduction: Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming oncology, evolving from image interpretation and pathology analysis to supporting complex clinical decision-making. This perspective argues that AI should enhance the capabilities of oncologists rather than replace their expertise....

AI-Based Clinical Trial End Points: A New Era in Drug Development: NEJM AI | July 2026

Introduction Clinical trial endpoints have traditionally relied on expert human interpretation, particularly for pathology-based outcomes. However, variability between observers, cost, and time remain important limitations. This NEJM AI perspective discusses how artificial intelligence is beginning...

Medical AI Assistant: Publication or Medical Device?: NEJM AI | July 2026

Introduction: As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into clinical practice, an important question arises: should AI assistants be regulated as medical devices or viewed as evidence-based clinical methodologies? This NEJM AI perspective proposes a new...

GastroAGI Logo

We are pioneers in clinical intelligence, dedicated to helping gastroenterologists harness the power of artificial intelligence to drive precision, efficiency, and patient growth.

For You

For StudentsFor CliniciansFor ResearchersSoonFor Patients

Core Tools

MELD-Na ScoreChild-PughFIB-4 IndexGlasgow-BlatchfordBISAP Score

Explore

OverviewAboutCalculators
Trending Topics
Conference Briefings
Blog Insights
©GastroAGI 2026
Privacy PolicyTerms of UseMedical Disclaimer