Figures & data
Table 1 Clinical Characteristic of the Subjects
Figure 1 The comparison of PAB levels in HBV-ACLF, HBV-DCC, HBV-LC, CHB, and HCs patients. Values are presented as mean± SD. The level of PAB in patients with HBV-ACLF was significantly lower than that in patients with HBV-DCC, HBV-LC, CHB, and HCs.
![Figure 1 The comparison of PAB levels in HBV-ACLF, HBV-DCC, HBV-LC, CHB, and HCs patients. Values are presented as mean± SD. The level of PAB in patients with HBV-ACLF was significantly lower than that in patients with HBV-DCC, HBV-LC, CHB, and HCs.](/cms/asset/05ee4683-7546-4c24-a405-04cf813453dd/didr_a_12157294_f0001_c.jpg)
Figure 2 The serum PAB levels in non-survivor (n = 57) and survivor (n = 128) patients with HBV-ACLF.
![Figure 2 The serum PAB levels in non-survivor (n = 57) and survivor (n = 128) patients with HBV-ACLF.](/cms/asset/2f9d0759-38b6-4241-8b22-81361d1b716b/didr_a_12157294_f0002_c.jpg)
Figure 3 Correlations between serum PAB levels and liver injury parameters in patients with HBV-related liver diseases. Correlations between PAB and ALT (a), AST (b), TBIL (c), INR (d), PLT (e), MELD (f).
![Figure 3 Correlations between serum PAB levels and liver injury parameters in patients with HBV-related liver diseases. Correlations between PAB and ALT (a), AST (b), TBIL (c), INR (d), PLT (e), MELD (f).](/cms/asset/fe923797-e9e0-46d0-a2d5-828e2309dd81/didr_a_12157294_f0003_c.jpg)
Table 2 Baseline Characteristics of the Deriving Cohort Enrolled in This Study on Admission
Table 3 Mortality According to PAB Levels
Figure 4 Using PAB on admission for predicting the prognosis of HBV‐ACLF. (a) the concentrations of PAB in Non-survivor (n = 38) and Survivor (n =82) patients in the deriving cohort. (b) ROC analysis shows the performance of PAB in distinguishing Non-survivor patients from Survivor patients in the deriving cohort.
![Figure 4 Using PAB on admission for predicting the prognosis of HBV‐ACLF. (a) the concentrations of PAB in Non-survivor (n = 38) and Survivor (n =82) patients in the deriving cohort. (b) ROC analysis shows the performance of PAB in distinguishing Non-survivor patients from Survivor patients in the deriving cohort.](/cms/asset/8d519ff2-78b6-4413-ab83-87c8c7c18ccd/didr_a_12157294_f0004_c.jpg)
Figure 5 The correlations between HIAPP and other scores on admission in the deriving cohorts (a) HIAPP score distribution of non-survivor and survivor HBV-ACLF patients in the deriving cohorts (b) The correlations between HIAPP and MELD (c) ROC analysis shows the performance of the HIAPP, COSSH-ACLF II, CLIF-C ACLF, and MELD scores.
![Figure 5 The correlations between HIAPP and other scores on admission in the deriving cohorts (a) HIAPP score distribution of non-survivor and survivor HBV-ACLF patients in the deriving cohorts (b) The correlations between HIAPP and MELD (c) ROC analysis shows the performance of the HIAPP, COSSH-ACLF II, CLIF-C ACLF, and MELD scores.](/cms/asset/f2be0e7e-d04b-418d-b6f3-a87e48733ded/didr_a_12157294_f0005_c.jpg)
Figure 6 The performance of PAB, HIAPP, COSSH-ACLF II, CLIF-C ACLF and MELD for predicting the 30‐day mortality in the validation cohort (a) PAB level of non-survivor and survivor of HBV‐ACLF patients in the validation cohort. (b) HIAPP score of non-survivors and survivors in the validation cohort. (c) ROC analysis shows the performance of PAB, HIAPP, COSSH-ACLF II, CLIF-C ACLF, and MELD scores in the validation cohort.
![Figure 6 The performance of PAB, HIAPP, COSSH-ACLF II, CLIF-C ACLF and MELD for predicting the 30‐day mortality in the validation cohort (a) PAB level of non-survivor and survivor of HBV‐ACLF patients in the validation cohort. (b) HIAPP score of non-survivors and survivors in the validation cohort. (c) ROC analysis shows the performance of PAB, HIAPP, COSSH-ACLF II, CLIF-C ACLF, and MELD scores in the validation cohort.](/cms/asset/d8662faf-989b-4096-bed3-d43075dc4570/didr_a_12157294_f0006_c.jpg)