ArticleScientific reports2026
HCC risk stratification scores: insights from large multi-center national cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current guidelines advocate biannual HCC surveillance for chronic hepatitis C patients who achieved sustained virological response (SVR) following direct acting antivirals (DAAs), posing a heavy burden on healthcare systems. This study aimed to identify the most accurate and clinically useful risk stratification tool among patients who achieved SVR following DAAs in a large, multicenter national cohort. A retrospective study across 52 NCCVH centers in Egypt included 8,419 CHC patients with cirrhosis (F4) or advanced fibrosis (F3) who achieved SVR after DAAs and had complete follow-up data. Baseline data were used to calculate HCC risk scores (GES, aMAP, THRI, ALBI, FIB-4). Prognostic performance was assessed using Kaplan–Meier analysis, AUC, Harrell’s C-index, and Brier score with calibration plots. Decision curve analysis and Net Reclassification Improvement were applied to evaluate clinical utility and incremental prognostic value. All evaluated HCC risk scores showed adequate performance, with significant separation of incidence curves (log-rank p ≤ 0.05). GES demonstrated the highest AUC (0.632), followed by THRI (0.600) and aMAP (0.591), with C-indices around 0.63.Kaplan–Meier analysis confirmed significant survival differences between risk groups. GES had superior calibration (Brier score 0.197, slope 0.90). Decision Curve Analysis favored GES, offering the greatest net clinical benefit, especially at thresholds 0.1–0.3. NRI analysis showed aMAP worsened classification (NRI = − 0.16), while THRI offered minimal improvement over GES (NRI = + 0.05). Implementation of the GES score in Egypt’s national HCC surveillance program, enabling individualized surveillance and reducing healthcare burden in accordance with current EASL recommendations.
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.