ArticleSeminars in oncology2015
Evaluation of total hepatocellular cancer lifespan, including both clinically evident and preclinical development, using combined network phenotyping strategy and fisher information analysis.
Article in Seminars in oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Network Phenotyping Strategy approach in a Turkish HCC Dataset and Comparison of Patients Selected for Transplant and those who were not.Journal of Inonu Liver Transplantation Institute · 2025Article
- Prognostic Factor and Serum Biomarker Changes in Non-Surgical Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with Radioembolization.Japanese journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We previously showed that for hepatocellular cancer (HCC) prognostication, disease parameters need to be considered within a total personal clinical context. This requires preserving the coherence of data values, observed simultaneously for each patient during baseline diagnostic evaluation. Application of the Network Phenotyping Strategy (NPS) provided quantitative descriptors of these patient coherences. Combination of these descriptors with Fisher information about the patient tumor mass and the histogram of the tumor masses in the whole cohort permitted estimation of the time from disease onset until clinical diagnosis (t(baseline)). We found faster growth of smaller tumors having total masses<70 (80% of cohort) which involved about three times more interacting cellular processes than were observed for slower growing larger tumors (20% of cohort) with total masses>70. Combining the clinical survival and t(baseline) normalized all HCC patients to a common 1,045 days of mean total disease duration (t(baseline) plus post diagnosis survival). We also found a simple relationship between the baseline clinical status, t(baseline), and survival. Every difference between individual patient baseline clinical profiles and special coherent clinical status (HL1) reduced the above common overall survival (OVS) by 65 days. In summary, we showed that HCC patients with any given tumor can best have their tumor biology understood, when account is taken of the total clinical and liver contexts, and with knowing the point in the tumor history when an HCC diagnosis is made. This ability to compute the t(baseline) from standard clinical data brings us closer to calculating survival from diagnosis of individual HCC patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.