MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404185764 · doi:10.1016/j.jhepr.2024.101263

Comparative evaluation of multimarker algorithms for early-stage HCC detection in multicenter prospective studies

2024· article· en· W4404185764 on OpenAlexaff
Jinlin Hou, Thomas Berg, Arndt Vogel, Teerha Piratvisuth, Jörg Trojan, Enrico N. De Toni, Masatoshi Kudo, Peter Findeisen, Johannes Kolja Hegel, Wenzel Schöning, Kairat Madin, Konstantin Kroeniger, Henry Lik‐Yuen Chan, Ashish Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueJHEP Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreToronto General Hospital
FundersIpsenEisaiBayer HealthCareFibroGenEA Pharma Co., Ltd.Gilead SciencesAmgenPfizerAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsStage (stratigraphy)AlgorithmOncologyInternal medicineMedicineComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background & Aims We compared the clinical performance of the novel GAAD (gender [biological sex], age, alpha-fetoprotein [AFP], des-gamma carboxyprothrombin [DCP]) and GALAD (gender [biological sex], age, AFP, Lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive AFP [AFP-L3], DCP) algorithms to deduce the clinical utility of AFP-L3 for detecting early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from chronic liver disease (CLD). Methods An algorithm development study (STOP-HCC-ARP) and clinical validation study (STOP-HCC-MCE) were conducted, recruiting adult participants with HCC (confirmed by radiology or pathology) or CLD in an international, multicenter, case-control design. Serum biomarkers were measured using Elecsys assays (GAAD and GALAD [Cobas]) or μTASWAKO assays (GALAD [μTASWAKO]) while blinded to case/control status. Results In STOP-HCC-ARP (algorithm development cohort), 1,006 patients {297 HCC (41.4% early-stage [Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer {BCLC} 0/A) and 709 CLD} were included. Area under the curve (AUCs) for discriminating between early-stage HCC vs. CLD were 91.4%, 91.4%, and 90.8% for GAAD (Cobas), GALAD (Cobas), and GALAD (μTASWAKO), respectively. The clinical validation cohort of STOP-HCC-MCE comprised 1,142 patients, (366 HCC cases [48% early-stage], 468 specificity samples and 302 CLD); AUCs for GAAD (Cobas), GALAD (Cobas), and GALAD (μTASWAKO) for discriminating between early-stage HCC vs. CLD were 91.4%, 91.5%, and 91.0%, respectively; AUCs were 94.7–95.0% for all-stage HCC. The GAAD and GALAD algorithms demonstrated similar good performance regardless of disease etiology, presence of cirrhosis, geographical region, and within pan-tumor specificity panels ( p <0.001). Conclusions GAAD (Cobas) demonstrated good clinical performance, similar to GALAD (Cobas and μTASWAKO) algorithms, in differentiating HCC and CLD controls, across all disease stages, etiologies, and regions; therefore, AFP-L3 may have a negligible role in GALAD for HCC surveillance. Impact and implications To improve the detection of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from benign chronic liver disease (CLD), algorithms combining demographic characteristics and serum biomarkers, such as GAAD and GALAD, have been developed. GAAD combines gender (biological sex), age, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), des-gamma carboxy-prothrombin (DCP); GALAD combines the same characteristics and biomarkers as GAAD with the addition of Lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive AFP (AFP-L3). Changing disease etiologies and treatment paradigms have raised questions regarding the utility of AFP-L3 in HCC surveillance. Our work demonstrates that the GAAD (Cobas) algorithm demonstrated good clinical performance and was as sensitive and specific as the GALAD (Cobas) and GALAD (μTASWAKO) algorithms in differentiating HCC and CLD controls, across all disease stages, etiologies, and geographical regions; therefore, AFP-L3 may have a negligible role in HCC detection. Our study provides supporting evidence that in participants with CLD undergoing guideline-directed HCC surveillance, the GAAD (Cobas) algorithm may be used as an effective method for the detection of HCC, potentially resulting in improved patient outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJHEP ReportsSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207