ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Artificial Intelligence in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Applications, Clinical Performance, and Barriers to Implementation.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a major cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, and its management is limited by heterogeneous risk profiles, suboptimal surveillance performance, diagnostic uncertainty in chronically diseased livers, and difficulty individualizing prognosis after treatment. The aim of this narrative review was to critically evaluate artificial intelligence (AI) applications across the HCC care continuum, with emphasis on their intended clinical role, reported performance, evidence maturity, and barriers to implementation. A major strength of this review is that it moves beyond a descriptive catalog of models by structuring the literature around clinically relevant decision points and by explicitly distinguishing emerging proof-of-concept tools from applications with stronger translational potential. Across risk stratification, surveillance, imaging-based diagnosis, pathology, treatment-response prediction, and prognostication, we found that AI consistently demonstrates promise, particularly for identifying patients at higher future HCC risk, improving lesion detection and characterization on ultrasound, CT, MRI, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound, assisting histopathologic classification, and predicting outcomes such as microvascular invasion, recurrence, survival, and response to locoregional therapies. However, we also found that the evidence base remains highly uneven: many diagnostic studies are retrospective and lesion-enriched rather than embedded in true surveillance populations, many prognostic models lack robust external validation and calibration assessment, and reference standards, imaging protocols, and dataset composition vary substantially across studies. These findings are clinically relevant because they highlight both where AI may offer near-term value and why most published systems are not yet ready for routine use. Overall, AI in HCC should be viewed as a rapidly evolving but still transitional field. Its future impact will depend not only on higher-performing algorithms but on clearly defined clinical use cases, multicenter and prospective validation, transparent reporting, workflow-aware evaluation, and implementation strategies that support safe, equitable, and scalable adoption.
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.