ArticleScientific reports2025
A stratified precision screening strategy for enhancing hepatitis B- and C-associated liver cancer detection: a prospective study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Decision Conflict Faced by First-Degree Relatives of Liver Cancer Patients in Liver Cancer Screening: A Cross-Sectional Study in China.Patient preference and adherence · 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study explores new screening strategies to enhance liver cancer screening effectiveness. In a prospective study, 2605 participants underwent baseline, 6-months self-reported, and 1-year follow-up screenings using abdominal ultrasonography, AFP, AFP-L3%, and DCP. The results demonstrated the GALADUS protocol exhibited superior performance with higher AUC (0.935 vs. 0.836; DeLong P < 0.001), sensitivity (91.0% vs. 70.8%; P < 0.001), detection (3.1% vs. 2.4%; P < 0.001), and early diagnosis rates (64.2% vs. 58.7%) compared to the AFP/US protocol. Notably, among individuals with an aMAP score ≥ 60, GALADUS had significantly outperformed AFP/US in AUC (0.923 vs. 0.826; DeLong P < 0.001), sensitivity (94.2% vs. 69.6%; P < 0.001), detection (9.7% vs. 7.2%; P < 0.001), and early diagnosis rates (63.1% vs. 54.2%). However, for those with an aMAP score < 60, GALADUS offered no significant advantages. Introducing the "aMAP triage" protocol, combining GALADUS for aMAP ≥ 60 and AFP/US for aMAP < 60, further enhanced AUC to 0.925 (DeLong P < 0.001), improved sensitivity by 19.1% (89.9% vs. 70.8%; P < 0.001), and increased detection (3.1% vs. 2.4%; P < 0.001) and early diagnosis rates (65.0% vs. 58.7%), being cost-effective compared to GALADUS. In conclusion, this study highlights the potential of a stratified precision screening strategy in identifying high-risk individuals, applying tailored early detection protocols to improve liver cancer screening efficacy.
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.