ArticleClinical epidemiology2026
Clinical Profiles of Biobank-Linked and Non-Biobank Patients with Liver Cancer: An Exploratory Analysis Using Nationwide Cancer Registry and Claims Data.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Patients represented in biobank cohorts may differ from the broader registry-defined cancer population. This study aimed to describe demographic, clinical, and survival differences between biobank-linked and non-biobank-linked patients with liver cancer in a nationwide cancer registry. Patients and Methods: This retrospective, registry-based exploratory study linked patients from the Taiwan Liver Cancer Network (TLCN), a multicenter liver cancer biobank, to the Taiwan Cancer Registry (TCR) database and identified patients diagnosed with liver cancer (ICD-O-3: C22) from 2007 to 2020. Comorbidities and survival follow-up were obtained from the National Health Insurance Research Database and the Death Registry. Patients were classified as TLCN-linked or non-TLCN-linked according to linkage status with the TLCN. Group differences were described using absolute standardized mean differences (ASMDs), and overall survival was summarized using Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared using Log rank tests. Results: We compared 4790 TLCN-linked patients with 126547 non-TLCN-linked patients identified in the cancer registry. Using an ASMD threshold of 0.20, several meaningful between-group differences were observed. Compared with non-TLCN-linked patients, TLCN-linked patients were younger and had higher proportions of men (79.0% vs 69.9%), early stage (stages I-II: 78.6% vs 57.2%), and surgery as first-course treatment (94.8% vs 50.75%), as well as a lower proportion of recorded metastasis (1.5% vs 12.6%). Differences in most comorbidities were small by ASMD. Among patients who received surgery, median overall survival was longer in TLCN-linked patients than in non-TLCN-linked patients across stages; for example, among stage I patients, median survival was 10.89 versus 7.27 years, respectively. Conclusion: Although TLCN biospecimens and associated data provide an important resource for translational research, TLCN-linked patients differed from non-TLCN-linked patients in the nationwide registry. These findings highlight the importance of considering the composition of the TLCN cohort when interpreting the applicability of future studies using TLCN biospecimens and associated data.
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.