Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37210452›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of surgical oncology2023

Development and Validation of a Machine-Learning Model to Predict Early Recurrence of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

Laura Alaimo, Henrique A Lima, Zorays Moazzam, Yutaka Endo, Jason Yang, Andrea Ruzzenente, Alfredo Guglielmi, Luca Aldrighetti, Matthew Weiss, Todd W Bauer and 12 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of surgical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Application of AI on cholangiocarcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2024
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Laura AlaimoDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Henrique A LimaDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Zorays MoazzamDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Yutaka EndoDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Jason YangDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Andrea RuzzenenteDepartment of Surgery, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Alfredo GuglielmiDepartment of Surgery, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Luca AldrighettiDepartment of Surgery, Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Matthew WeissDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Todd W BauerDepartment of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Sorin AlexandrescuDepartment of Surgery, Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania.
George A PoultsidesDepartment of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Shishir K MaithelDepartment of Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Hugo P MarquesDepartment of Surgery, Curry Cabral Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal.
Guillaume MartelDepartment of Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Carlo PulitanoDepartment of Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Feng ShenDepartment of Surgery, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Shanghai, China.
François CauchyDepartment of Hepatobiliopancreatic Surgery and Liver Transplantation, AP-HP, Beaujon Hospital, Clichy, France.
Bas Groot KoerkampDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Itaru EndoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan.
Minoru KitagoDepartment of Surgery, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan.
Timothy M PawlikDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA. Tim.Pawlik@osumc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7994-9870

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe high incidence of early recurrence after hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) has a detrimental effect on overall survival (OS). Machine-learning models may improve the accuracy of outcome prediction for malignancies.

methodsPatients who underwent curative-intent hepatectomy for ICC were identified using an international database. Three machine-learning models were trained to predict early recurrence (< 12 months after hepatectomy) using 14 clinicopathologic characteristics. The area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) was used to assess their discrimination ability.

resultsIn this study, 536 patients were randomly assigned to training (n = 376, 70.1%) and testing (n = 160, 29.9%) cohorts. Overall, 270 (50.4%) patients experienced early recurrence (training: n = 150 [50.3%] vs testing: n = 81 [50.6%]), with a median tumor burden score (TBS) of 5.6 (training: 5.8 [interquartile range {IQR}, 4.1-8.1] vs testing: 5.5 [IQR, 3.7-7.9]) and metastatic/undetermined nodes (N1/NX) in the majority of the patients (training: n = 282 [75.0%] vs testing n = 118 [73.8%]). Among the three different machine-learning algorithms, random forest (RF) demonstrated the highest discrimination in the training/testing cohorts (RF [AUC, 0.904/0.779] vs support vector machine [AUC, 0.671/0.746] vs logistic regression [AUC, 0.668/0.745]). The five most influential variables in the final model were TBS, perineural invasion, microvascular invasion, CA 19-9 lower than 200 U/mL, and N1/NX disease. The RF model successfully stratified OS relative to the risk of early recurrence.

conclusionsMachine-learning prediction of early recurrence after ICC resection may inform tailored counseling, treatment, and recommendations. An easy-to-use calculator based on the RF model was developed and made available online.

Indexed as

Bile Duct NeoplasmsCholangiocarcinomaBile Ducts, IntrahepaticHumansMachine LearningPrognosisEarly recurrenceIntrahepatic cholangiocarcinomaMachine learningOnline calculator

Identifiers

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.