Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41534080›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2026

Effectiveness of Machine Learning in Detecting Vessels Encapsulating Tumor Clusters in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Huili Shui, Wenyu Wu, Zhenming Xie, Bing Yang, Jia Deng, Dongxin Tang

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

6 authors.

Huili ShuiGuizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guiyang, Guizhou Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8284-9516
Wenyu WuGuizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guiyang, Guizhou Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0339-6585
Zhenming XieGuizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guiyang, Guizhou Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4824-9094
Bing YangGuizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guiyang, Guizhou Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3167-9954
Jia DengGuizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guiyang, Guizhou Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1974-386X
Dongxin TangGuizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guiyang, Guizhou Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-3988-102X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVessels encapsulating tumor clusters (VETC) are significantly associated with poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, identifying VETC early remains challenging. Recently, machine learning has shown promise for VETC detection, but their diagnostic accuracy lacks systematic validation.

objectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of machine learning models for detecting VETC in patients with HCC.

methodsThe Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed were searched up to June 21, 2025. Eligible studies focused on machine learning models for HCC VETC diagnosis. Studies that merely analyzed risk factors or lacked outcome measures were excluded. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias. A bivariate mixed-effects model was used for a meta-analysis based on 2×2 diagnostic tables. Subgroup analyses were performed according to modeling variables (nonradiomic vs radiomic features) and model types (traditional machine learning vs deep learning).

resultsThis meta-analysis included 31 studies comprising 6755 patients with HCC (2699 VETC-positive). Nineteen studies used machine learning models based on nonradiomic features, and 12 used radiomic features (including deep learning). In the validation set, the nonradiomic model demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI 0.66-0.78), specificity of 0.74 (95% CI 0.68-0.80), and an area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC AUC) of 0.80 (95% CI 0.76-0.83). The radiomic model showed sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.87), specificity of 0.73 (95% CI 0.67-0.79), and SROC AUC of 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.87). Traditional machine learning achieved sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.71-0.92), specificity of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67-0.81), and SROC AUC of 0.83 (95% CI 0.80-0.86). Deep learning exhibited sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.84), specificity of 0.70 (95% CI 0.59-0.79), and SROC AUC of 0.81 (95% CI 0.77-0.85).

conclusionsThis meta-analysis is the first to quantitatively assess the efficacy of machine learning models in HCC VETC diagnosis, addressing an evidence gap in this field. Unlike previous descriptive reviews, this analysis provides the first quantitative evidence revealing the potential value of machine learning in detecting HCC VETC. The findings provide a foundation for developing and refining subsequent intelligent detection tools. Despite their promising prospects, machine learning models have not yet reached the maturity required for clinical translation, owing to methodological heterogeneity, limited validation, and a high risk of bias. Future research should focus on conducting multicenter, large-sample, standardized, prospective studies to advance clinical translation.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD420251084894; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251084894.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularLiver NeoplasmsMachine LearningHumanscarcinomahepatocellularhepatocellular carcinomamachine learningradiomicssensitivityspecificityvessels encapsulating tumor clustersVETC

Identifiers

PMID41534080
PMCPMC12853091

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.