Background: Accurate assessment of liver fibrosis is critical for the management of chronic liver disease. Noninvasive biomarkers are increasingly being investigated as alternatives to liver biopsy. Platelet count has emerged as a potential predictor of advanced fibrosis and may complement established indices such as the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score and the aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI). Methods: This prospective analysis included 101 patients with histologically confirmed data obtained through liver biopsy or hepatic resection. Platelet count, APRI, FIB-4, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, Mac-2 binding protein glycosylation isomer (M2BPGi), and albumin-bilirubin score were measured and correlated with fibrosis stage using the METAVIR scoring system. Logistic regression analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were performed to assess the predictive performance of each marker. Results: Platelet count demonstrated an inverse correlation with fibrosis severity and was identified as the most reliable predictor of advanced fibrosis (METAVIR ≥3), with an area under the ROC curve of 0.822. Using a cutoff value of 184,000, platelet count yielded a sensitivity of 69.2% and a specificity of 87.8% for the detection of significant fibrosis. Conclusions Platelet count is a simple, widely available, and robust predictor of liver fibrosis, outperforming APRI, FIB-4, and M2BPGi in multivariate analysis. Validation in larger, independent cohorts is warranted to confirm its clinical utility.

Background: The quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score is suggested to use for screening patients with a high risk of clinical deterioration in the general wards, which could simply be regarded as a general early warning score. However, comparison of unselected admissions to highlight the benefits of introducing qSOFA in hospitals already using Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) remains unclear. We sought to compare qSOFA with MEWS for predicting clinical deterioration in general ward patients regardless of suspected infection. Methods: The predictive performance of qSOFA and MEWS for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) or unexpected intensive care unit (ICU) transfer was compared with the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis using the databases of vital signs collected from consecutive hospitalized adult patients over 12 months in five participating hospitals in Korea. Results: Of 173,057 hospitalized patients included for analysis, 668 (0.39%) experienced the composite outcome. The discrimination for the composite outcome for MEWS (AUC, 0.777;95% confidence interval [CI], 0.770–0.781) was higher than that for qSOFA (AUC, 0.684;95% CI, 0.676–0.686; P < 0.001). In addition, MEWS was better for prediction of IHCA (AUC, 0.792; 95% CI, 0.781–0.795 vs. AUC, 0.640; 95% CI, 0.625–0.645; P < 0.001) and unexpected ICU transfer (AUC, 0.767; 95% CI, 0.760–0.773 vs. AUC, 0.716; 95% CI, 0.707–0.718; P < 0.001) than qSOFA. Using the MEWS at a cutoff of ≥ 5 would correctly reclassify 3.7% of patients from qSOFA score ≥ 2. Most patients met MEWS ≥ 5 criteria 13 hours before the composite outcome compared with 11 hours for qSOFA score ≥ 2. Conclusion MEWS is more accurate that qSOFA score for predicting IHCA or unexpected ICU transfer in patients outside the ICU. Our study suggests that qSOFA should not replace MEWS for identifying patients in the general wards at risk of poor outcome.