ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Development and validation of a risk prediction model for incident liver cancer.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Development and validation of a modified PAGE-B score based nomogram for predicting hepatocellular carcinoma in antiviral-treated chronic hepatitis B patients with metabolic dysfunction.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Big Data Analytics in Large Cohorts: Opportunities and Challenges for Research in Hepatology.Seminars in liver disease · 2025Review
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
Objective: We aimed to develop and validate a risk prediction model for liver cancer based on routinely available risk factors using the data from UK Biobank prospective cohort study. Methods: This analysis included 359,489 participants (2,894,807 person-years) without a previous diagnosis of cancer. We used the Fine-Gray regression model to predict the incident risk of liver cancer, accounting for the competing risk of all-cause death. Model discrimination and calibration were validated internally. Decision curve analysis was conducted to quantify the clinical utility of the model. Nomogram was built based on regression coefficients. Results: Good discrimination performance of the model was observed in both development and validation datasets, with an area under the curve (95% confidence interval) for 5-year risk of 0.782 (0.748-0.816) and 0.771 (0.702-0.840) respectively. The calibration showed fine agreement between observed and predicted risks. The model yielded higher positive net benefits in the decision curve analysis than considering either all participants as being at high or low risk, which indicated good clinical utility. Conclusion: A new risk prediction model for liver cancer composed of routinely available risk factors was developed. The model had good discrimination, calibration and clinical utility, which may help with the screening and management of liver cancer for general population in the public health field.
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.