ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental hepatology
Assessing the Predictive Accuracy of the aMAP Risk Score for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC): Diagnostic Test Accuracy and Meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental hepatology. 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.
- The aMAP score combined with plasma cfDNA methylation testing for risk stratification in hepatitis population: a case-control study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The aMAP score improves discrimination of prognostic models in hepatocellular carcinoma after radiofrequency ablation.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We aimed to perform a meta-analysis with the intention of evaluating the reliability and test accuracy of the aMAP risk score in the identification of HCC. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science databases from inception to September 2023, to identify studies measuring the aMAP score in patients for the purpose of predicting the occurrence or recurrence of HCC. The meta-analysis was performed using the meta package in R version 4.1.0. The diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis was conducted using Meta-DiSc software. Results: Thirty-five studies 102,959 participants were included in the review. The aMAP score was significantly higher in the HCC group than in the non-HCC group, with a mean difference of 6.15. When the aMAP score is at 50, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio, and positive likelihood ratio with 95% CI was 0.961 (95% CI 0.936, 0.976), 0.344 (95% CI 0.227, 0.483), 0.114 (95% CI 0.087, 0.15), and 1.464 (95% CI 1.22, 1.756), respectively. At a cutoff value of 60, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio, and positive likelihood ratio with 95% CI was 0.594 (95% CI 0.492, 0.689), 0.816 (95% CI 0.714, 0.888), 0.497 (95% CI 0.418, 0.591), and 3.235 (95% CI 2.284, 4.582), respectively. Conclusion: The aMAP score is a reliable, accurate, and easy-to-use tool for predicting HCC patients of all stages, including early-stage HCC. Therefore, the aMAP score can be a valuable tool for surveillance of HCC patients and can help to improve early detection and reduce mortality.
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.