A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

The Diagnostic Accuracy Between Radiomics Model and Non-radiomics Model for Preoperative of Microvascular Invasion of Solitary Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Rationale And Objectives: Microvascular invasion (MVI) is a key prognostic factor for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The predictive models for solitary HCC could potentially integrate more comprehensive tumor information. Owing to the diverse findings across studies, we aimed to compare radiomic and non-radiomic methods for preoperative MVI detection in solitary HCC.

Materials And Methods: Articles were reviewed from databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library until April 7, 2023. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were calculated using a random-effects model within a 95% confidence interval (CI). Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using summary receiver-operating characteristic curves and the area under the curve (AUC). Meta-regression and Z-tests identified heterogeneity and compared the predictive accuracy. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare the AUC of two methods according to study type, study design, tumor size, modeling methods, and imaging modality.

Results: The analysis incorporated 26 studies involving 3539 patients with solitary HCC. The radiomics models showed a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.79 (95%CI: 0.72-0.85) and 0.78 (95%CI: 0.73-0.82), with an AUC at 0.85 (95%CI: 0.82-0.88). Conversely, the non-radiomics models had sensitivity and specificity of 0.74 (95%CI: 0.65-0.81) and 0.88 (95%CI: 0.82-0.92) and an AUC of 0.88 (95%CI: 0.85-0.91). Subgroups with preoperative MRI, larger tumors, and functional imaging had higher accuracy than those using preoperative CT, smaller tumors, and conventional imaging.

Conclusion: Non-radiomic methods outperformed radiomic methods, but high heterogeneity calls across studies for cautious interpretation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2024.04.003DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

sensitivity specificity
12
diagnostic accuracy
8
microvascular invasion
8
hepatocellular carcinoma
8
solitary hcc
8
non-radiomic methods
8
pooled sensitivity
8
likelihood ratio
8
088 95%ci
8
methods
6

Similar Publications