ArticleCancers2026
Multiphasic Evidential Decision-Making Matrix (MedMax) for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Single-Center Validation Study.
Article in Cancers, 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
backgroundIntrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ihCC) is a rare aggressive liver malignancy with rising incidence. For resectable cases, surgery is the only curative approach, but recurrence rates remain high. These challenges highlight the need for personalized, evidence-based clinical decision-making to improve patient outcomes. To address this, we developed the Multiphasic Evidential Decision-making Matrix (MedMax) to support systematic, individualized therapeutic strategies for ihCC.
methodsIn this retrospective single-center study, between 2010 and 2020, we assessed the ability of the MedMax matrix to make treatment decisions in 489 consecutive patients with ihCC or suspected ihCC. Patients were divided into two cohorts depending on whether their tumor was operable (surgical cohort, n = 335) or non-operable (non-surgical cohort, n = 154). We assessed the accuracy of diagnostic confirmation and treatment allocation by MedMax and evaluated how the model's recommendations corresponded to those made by the tumor board.
resultsIn the surgical cohort, MedMax achieved 100% accuracy in diagnostic confirmation and 97.9% accuracy in treatment allocation. There was 74.3% concordance between the resection type proposed by MedMax and actual extent of resection. This discrepancy was caused by deviations from the preoperative plan based on intraoperative findings, which could not have been predicted preoperatively. In the non-surgical cohort, MedMax again achieved 100% accuracy in diagnostic confirmation and 98.7% accuracy in treatment allocation. All discrepancies between the decisions made by MedMax and those made by the tumor board were attributed complex, high-risk patient profiles. MedMax reliably identified risk factors (such as advanced comorbidities and multifocal disease) in both cohorts.
conclusionsThe MedMax matrix can make accurate, reliable and transparent decisions about the diagnosis and treatment of patients with ihCC thanks to its modular, evidence-based approach. It can also stratify and document risks in both surgical and non-surgical settings.
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.