ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative analysis of the predictive value of the ASAP model and the GAAD model for liver cancer high risk cohorts.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The ASAP Model and GAAD Model integrate gender, age, AFP, and PIVKA-II to predict hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk. This study compared their diagnostic performance in a high-risk cohort. A total of 352 subjects were enrolled, including 115 HCC patients, 137 with chronic liver disease (CLD), and 100 healthy controls (HCs). Serum AFP and PIVKA-II levels were measured using Abbott and Roche assays, respectively. ASAP and GAAD scores were calculated. Using manufacturer-recommended cutoffs and predefined thresholds (ASAP ≥ 33.4%, ASAP ≥ 66.7%, GAAD ≥ 2.57), we evaluated the diagnostic performance of each model. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were compared using the DeLong test. In the HCC group, both the median values and positive rates for ASAP and GAAD scores were significantly higher than those observed in the CLD group and HCs (P < 0.01). ASAP ≥ 33.4% showed the highest sensitivity (0.974), although its specificity was lower (0.658). ASAP ≥ 66.7% exhibited the highest specificity (0.894) and accuracy (0.901). However, neither threshold could definitively exclude HCC in low-risk ranges. For Test Cohort 1 (including the HCC group and other non-HCC groups), the AUCs for ASAP and GAAD scores were 0.955 and 0.958, respectively (P = 0.610). For Test Cohort 2 (including HCC and CLD groups), the AUCs for ASAP and GAAD scores were 0.926 and 0.928 (P = 0.810). For Test Cohort 3 (including the CLD and HCs groups), the AUCs for ASAP and GAAD scores were 0.833 and 0.832 (P = 0.944). Both ASAP and GAAD demonstrated excellent diagnostic performance for HCC, significantly outperforming single tumor markers. No significant differences were observed between the two models across all risk cohorts, suggesting their comparable clinical utility.
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.