Suboptimal Performance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Prediction Models in Patients with Hepatitis B Virus-Related Cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the predictive performance of pre-existing well-validated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prediction models, established in patients with HBV-related cirrhosis who started potent antiviral therapy (AVT). We retrospectively reviewed the cases of 1339 treatment-naïve patients with HBV-related cirrhosis who started AVT (median period, 56.8 months). The scores of the pre-existing HCC risk prediction models were calculated at the time of AVT initiation. HCC developed in 211 patients (15.1%), and the cumulative probability of HCC development at 5 years was 14.6%. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that older age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.023), lower platelet count (aHR, 0.997), lower serum albumin level (aHR, 0.578), and greater LS value (aHR, 1.012) were associated with HCC development. Harrell’s c-indices of the PAGE-B, modified PAGE-B, modified REACH-B, CAMD, aMAP, HCC-RESCUE, AASL-HCC, Toronto HCC Risk Index, PLAN-B, APA-B, CAGE-B, and SAGE-B models were suboptimal in patients with HBV-related cirrhosis, ranging from 0.565 to 0.667. Nevertheless, almost all patients were well stratified into low-, intermediate-, or high-risk groups according to each model (all log-rank p < 0.05), except for HCC-RESCUE (p = 0.080). Since all low-risk patients had cirrhosis at baseline, they had unneglectable cumulative incidence of HCC development (5-year incidence, 4.9−7.5%). Pre-existing risk prediction models for patients with chronic hepatitis B showed suboptimal predictive performances for the assessment of HCC development in patients with HBV-related cirrhosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".