Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35464276›Full record

ArticleHepatobiliary surgery and nutrition2022

Development of a machine learning model to predict early recurrence for hepatocellular carcinoma after curative resection.

Jianxing Zeng, Jinhua Zeng, Kongying Lin, Haitao Lin, Qionglan Wu, Pengfei Guo, Weiping Zhou, Jingfeng Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jianxing Zeng *Department of Hepatic Surgery, Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Jinhua Zeng *Department of Hepatic Surgery, Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Kongying Lin *Southeast Big Data Institute of Hepatobiliary Health, Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Haitao LinSoutheast Big Data Institute of Hepatobiliary Health, Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Qionglan WuDepartment of Pathology, Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Pengfei GuoSoutheast Big Data Institute of Hepatobiliary Health, Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Weiping ZhouThe Third Department of Hepatic Surgery, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Jingfeng LiuDepartment of Hepatic Surgery, Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Early recurrence is common for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after surgical resection, being the leading cause of death. Traditionally, the COX proportional hazard (CPH) models based on linearity assumption have been used to predict early recurrence, but predictive performance is limited. Machine learning models offer a novel methodology and have several advantages over CPH models. Hence, the purpose of this study was to compare random survival forests (RSF) model with CPH models in prediction of early recurrence for HCC patients after curative resection. Methods: A total of 4,758 patients undergoing curative resection from two medical centers were included. Fifteen features including age, gender, etiology, platelet count, albumin, total bilirubin, AFP, tumor size, tumor number, microvascular invasion, macrovascular invasion, Edmondson-Steiner grade, tumor capsular, satellite nodules and liver cirrhosis were used to construct the RSF model in training cohort. Discrimination, calibration, clinical usefulness and overall performance were assessed and compared with other models. Results: Five hundred survival trees were used to generate the RFS model. The five highest Variable Importance (VIMP) were tumor size, macrovascular invasion, microvascular invasion, tumor number and AFP. In training, internal and external validation cohort, the C-index of RSF model were 0.725 [standard errors (SE) =0.005], 0.762 (SE =0.011) and 0.747 (SE =0.016), respectively; the Gönen & Heller's K of RSF model were 0.684 (SE =0.005), 0.711 (SE =0.008) and 0.697 (SE =0.014), respectively; the time-dependent AUC (2 years) of RSF model were 0.818 (SE =0.008), 0.823 (SE =0.014) and 0.785 (SE =0.025), respectively. The RSF model outperformed early recurrence after surgery for liver tumor (ERASL) model, Korean model, American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor-node-metastasis (AJCC TNM) stage, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage and Chinese stage. The RSF model is capable of stratifying patients into three different risk groups (low-risk, intermediate-risk, high-risk groups) in the training and two validation cohorts (all P<0.0001). A web-based prediction tool was built to facilitate clinical application (https://recurrenceprediction.shinyapps.io/surgery_predict/). Conclusions: The RSF model is a reliable tool to predict early recurrence for patients with HCC after curative resection because it exhibited superior performance compared with other models. This novel model will be helpful to guide postoperative follow-up and adjuvant therapy.

Indexed as

early recurrenceHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)individualized predictionliver resectionmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID35464276
PMCPMC9023817

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.