Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40990650›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2026

Identification and validation of an explainable machine learning model for hepatocellular carcinoma at high risk: a retrospective multicenter cohort study.

Shufang Hao, Xiaoyu Liang, Xue Li, Mengxuan Zuo, Yan Fu, Yushu Ouyang, Guolian Zhu, Chengzhi Li, Junwei Chen, Hongyu Wang and 3 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Shufang HaoDepartment of Interventional Therapy, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine and Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Xiaoyu LiangDepartment of Interventional Therapy, The Second Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Xue LiDepartment of Interventional Therapy, The Second Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Mengxuan ZuoDepartment of Minimal Invasive Intervention, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Yan FuDepartment of Interventional Therapy, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, P. R. China.
Yushu OuyangDepartment of Interventional Therapy, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine and Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Guolian ZhuDepartment of Interventional Therapy, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Center, Shantou Overseas Chinese Hospital (Chenghai District People's Hospital), Shantou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Chengzhi LiDepartment of Interventional Radiology and Vascular Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Junwei ChenDepartment of Interventional Radiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Hongyu WangDepartment of Interventional Therapy, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine and Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Chao AnDepartment of Minimal Invasive Intervention, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Jinwei LiDepartment of Interventional Therapy, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine and Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Wendao LiuDepartment of Interventional Therapy, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine and Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently, there is still a lack of noninvasive, automated, and accurate machine learning (ML) model for prognostic risk stratification of high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma (hHCC) after transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). PURPOSE: To develop and test an ML-based model that integrates various clinical variables for prediction of early recurrence (ER, defined as recurrence within 24 months after treatment) after TACE for hHCC.

methodsFrom May 2008 to October 2022, consecutive patients with unresectable HCC who underwent initial TACE were reviewed at multicenter. We input 39 preoperative and 5 treatment-related variables into five ML-based models for ER prediction. Furthermore, we compared their performances using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with DeLong test between these ML models and the major staging systems including Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer, China National Liver Cancer, American Joint Committee on Cancer, Japan Society of Hepatology, and Hong Kong Liver Cancer. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank tests.

resultsA total of 2068 eligible patients with hHCC were categorized into the training set ( n = 1220), the internal test set ( n = 306), and the external test set ( n = 542). ER rate was found in 78.4%, 78.8 %, and 62.5% of patients in three sets. Among all ML models, the eXtreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) model using top seven variables yielded the highest AUC of 0.888 in the internal test set and 0.854 in the external test set. Furthermore, it yielded better discriminatory ability for RFS with higher time-dependent AUC than all major staging systems (DeLong test, all P < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed significant OS and RFS risk stratification using the XGBoost model in three sets, respectively.

conclusionThe XGBoost model demonstrated superior predictive performance compared with other four ML models and all clinical staging systems in identifying ER, which may support individualized TACE management by guiding therapy selection.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularChemoembolization, TherapeuticLiver NeoplasmsMachine LearningNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk Assessmentearly recurrencehepatocellular carcinomahigh riskmachine learningtranscatheter arterial chemoembolization

Identifiers

PMID40990650
PMCPMC12825735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.