ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Clinical Performance Evaluation of Demographic-Based Liver Volumetry.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient demographic-based standard liver volume (SLV) models are widely used to estimate patient-specific hepatic metabolic demand and support future liver remnant assessment after hepatectomy. These formulae rely on anthropometric variables such as weight, height, and body surface area; however, their accuracy for individual patients remains uncertain. In an exploratory single-center study, we evaluated ten published SLV formulae and one in-house multivariable regression model against CT-derived liver volumes as the anatomic reference standard in 100 patients with normal livers, using Bland-Altman analysis. Mean percentage bias ranged from -20% to +11%, with only 4-32% of cases achieving prediction errors within ±5%, and the 95% limits of agreement were wide for every model, spanning from ±25% to ±36% around the mean bias. Because percentage bias is expressed relative to the measured volume, the width of the limits of agreement was almost entirely determined by calibration (r = 0.99 with signed mean bias). Once this scaling was removed, the ten published formulae were indistinguishable, with calibration-adjusted limits of agreement of ±31.3% to ±32.7% (mean ±32.0%, SD 0.40). Rescaling each formula by a single multiplicative constant (0.924 to 1.282) reduced mean bias to between +1.2% and +3.6% and converged the limits of agreement to ±32.4% to ±33.1%, raising the proportion of patients estimated within ±10% from 13% to 54% for the most poorly calibrated formula; refitting both slope and intercept gave no further improvement. The in-house model, using five predictors fitted within this cohort, reached ±29.4% and was the only specification below this floor. In this exploratory single-center cohort, prediction error was wide across the observed range and showed no dependence on predicted liver volume. The limitations for SLV appear to lie in the demographic predictors rather than in the reference measurements. Therefore, future work should focus on predictors that capture information beyond body size, such as measures of body composition or liver function.
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.