ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024
A deep learning model for personalized intra-arterial therapy planning in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A multimodal deep learning model predicting hyperprogressive disease for PD-1 blockade in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Arterial and biliary complications after transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma.World journal of clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Modern approach to hepatocellular carcinoma treatment.World journal of hepatology · 2025Review
- Predictive factors and prognostic models for Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy in Hepatocellular carcinoma: a comprehensive review.World journal of surgical oncology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma (uHCC) poses a substantial global health challenge, demanding innovative prognostic and therapeutic planning tools for improved patient management. The predominant treatment strategies include Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC). Methods: Between January 2014 and November 2021, a total of 1725 uHCC patients [mean age, 52.8 ± 11.5 years; 1529 males] received preoperative CECT scans and were eligible for TACE or HAIC. Patients were assigned to one of the four cohorts according to their treatment, four transformer models (SELECTION) were trained and validated on each cohort; AUC was used to determine the prognostic performance of the trained models. Patients were stratified into high and low-risk groups based on the survival scores computed by SELECTION. The proposed AI-based treatment decision model (ATOM) utilizes survival scores to further inform final therapeutic recommendation. Findings: In this study, the training and validation sets included 1448 patients, with an additional 277 patients allocated to the external validation sets. The SELECTION model outperformed both clinical models and the ResNet approach in terms of AUC. Specifically, SELECTION-TACE and SELECTION-HAIC achieved AUCs of 0.761 (95% CI, 0.693-0.820) and 0.805 (95% CI, 0.707-0.881) respectively, in predicting ORR in their external validation cohorts. In predicting OS, SELECTION-TC and SELECTION-HC demonstrated AUCs of 0.736 (95% CI, 0.608-0.841) and 0.748 (95% CI, 0.599-0.865) respectively, in their external validation sets. SELECTION-derived survival scores effectively stratified patients into high and low-risk groups, showing significant differences in survival probabilities (P < 0.05 across all four cohorts). Additionally, the concordance between ATOM and clinician recommendations was associated with significantly higher response/survival rates in cases of agreement, particularly within the TACE, HAIC, and TC cohorts in the external validation sets (P < 0.05). Interpretation: ATOM was proposed based on SELECTION-derived survival scores, emerges as a promising tool to inform the selection among different intra-arterial interventional therapy techniques. Funding: This study received funding from the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation, China (Z190024); the Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China, China (81930119); The Science and Technology Planning Program of Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission and Administrative Commission of Zhongguancun Science Park, China (Z231100004823012); Tsinghua University Initiative Scientific Research Program of Precision Medicine, China (10001020108); and Institute for Intelligent Healthcare, Tsinghua University, China (041531001).
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.