ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2024
A machine learning clinic scoring system for hepatocellular carcinoma based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence techniques in liver cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) poses a global threat to life; however, numerical tools to predict the clinical prognosis of these patients remain scarce. The primary objective of this study is to establish a clinical scoring system for evaluating the overall survival (OS) rate and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rate in HCC patients. Methods: From the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, we identified 45,827 primary HCC patients. These cases were randomly allocated to a training cohort (22,914 patients) and a validation cohort (22,913 patients). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses, coupled with Kaplan-Meier methods, were employed to evaluate prognosis-related clinical and demographic features. Factors demonstrating prognostic significance were used to construct the model. The model's stability and accuracy were assessed through C-index, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration curves, and clinical decision curve analysis (DCA), while comparisons were made with the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging. Ultimately, machine learning (ML) quantified the variables in the model to establish a clinical scoring system. Results: Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses identified 11 demographic and clinical-pathological features as independent prognostic indicators for both CSS and OS using. Two models, each incorporating the 11 features, were developed, both of which demonstrated significant prognostic relevance. The C-index for predicting CSS and OS surpassed that of the AJCC staging system. The area under the curve (AUC) in time-dependent ROC consistently exceeded 0.74 in both the training and validation sets. Furthermore, internal and external calibration plots indicated that the model predictions aligned closely with observed outcomes. Additionally, DCA demonstrated the superiority of the model over the AJCC staging system, yielding greater clinical net benefit. Ultimately, the quantified clinical scoring system could efficiently discriminate between high and low-risk patients. Conclusions: A ML clinical scoring system trained on a large-scale dataset exhibits good predictive and risk stratification performance in the cohorts. Such a clinical scoring system is readily integrable into clinical practice and will be valuable in enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of HCC management.
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.