ArticleJournal of hepatocellular carcinoma2026
A Machine Learning Guided System for Therapeutic Decision-Making in Intra-Arterial Therapy of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
Article in Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop and validate a machine learning-guided system (MLGS) for stratifying prognostic risk of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) based on clinical data before and after intra-arterial therapy (IAT). Methods: Between April 2008 and June 2022, a total of 5646 eligible patients with uHCC who underwent initial IAT were consecutively identified in 15 hospitals. The 5 year mortality was used as primary predictive outcome. Thirty-five sets of clinical data, including 29 preoperative and 6 postoperative data, were input successively into five supervised ML models. The performance of the ML models was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve with the DeLong test. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to revealed overall survival (OS) risk stratification of the MLGS. Results: These patients were divided into training datasets (TD, n=3387), internal testing datasets (ITD, n=1130), and external test datasets (ETD, n=1129), respectively.The CatBoost model yield the best discrimination using preoperative data in the ML models using 23 variables, the AUC of CatBoost model were 0.777-0.735 in three datasets. Meanwhile, the XGBoost model yield the best discrimination using postoperative 20 variables and the AUC of XGBoost model were 0.904-0.861 in three datasets, which outperform significantly the performance of the CatBoost model (DeLong test, Conclusion: The MLGS may guide radiologists in developing strategies of IAT for uHCC. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate its 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.