SynthesisHepatology international2025
Analysis of risk factors for immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated liver injury: a retrospective analysis based on clinical study and real-world data.
Synthesis in Hepatology international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immune-mediated liver injury caused by checkpoint inhibitors: A case series and review of the literature.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Article
- Prediction of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Induced Liver Injury in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer: Machine Learning Modeling for Time-Stratified Risk Assessment.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Hepatic and Pancreatobiliary Immune-Related Adverse Events in Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Multidisciplinary Approach.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Integrating Pharmacovigilance Data Mining and Mendelian Randomization to Identify Risk Profiles and Causal Targets of Opioid-Induced Delirium.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2026Article
- Risk assessment of drug-associated miscarriage using XGBoost and SHAP explainability: a real-world pharmacovigilance analysis based on the FAERS database.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Analysis of risk factors for herb-induced liver injury: a retrospective study from China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Application of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Cancer.MedComm · 2025Review
- Predictive factors and outcomes of immune-related adverse events in Chinese patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a real-world retrospective study.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Bimodal onset and pan-cancer uniformity of immune-mediated liver injury: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- A retrospective study of clinical characteristics and steroid therapy in immune checkpoint inhibitor-mediated hepatitis.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImmune-mediated hepatotoxicity (IMH) induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can lead to fatal outcomes. Exploring the risk factors associated with IMH is crucial for the early identification and management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs).
methodsScreening IMH-influencing factors by applying meta-analysis to clinical research data. Utilizing FAERS data, ICIs-related IMH prediction models were developed using two types of variables (full variables and optimal variables screened by univariate logistic regression) and nine machine learning algorithms (logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, gradient boosting decision tree, extreme gradient boosting, K-Nearest Neighbor, bootstrap aggregation, adaptive boosting, and extremely randomized trees). Comparing the nine machine learning algorithms and screening the optimal model while using SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) analysis to interpret the results of the optimal machine learning model.
resultsA total of 17 studies (10,135 patients) were included. The results showed that ICIs combination therapy (OR = 5.10, 95% CI: 1.68-15.48) and history of ICIs treatment (OR = 3.58, 95% CI: 2.08-6.14) were significantly associated with the risk of all-grade IMH. Patients aged 56-63 years (MD = - 5.09, 95% CI: - 9.52 to - 0.67) were significantly associated with the risk of ≥ grade 3 IMH. The liver adverse reaction prediction model included a total of 51,555 patients from the FAERS database, of which 4607 cases were liver adverse reactions. Univariate logistic regression analysis ultimately screened eight optimal variables, with females, report areas, cancer type, ICIs drug type, concomitant autoimmune disease, the concomitant use of anti-hypertension drugs, and the concomitant use of CTLA-4 inhibitors or targeted therapy drugs being significant influencing factors. The performance of the model after the variables were screened by univariate logistic regression was slightly worse than that of the model with full variables. Among the best-performing liver adverse reaction prediction models was GBDT (training set AUC = 0.82, test set AUC = 0.79). The top 3 key predictors in the GBDT model were report areas, disease type, and ICIs drug type.
conclusionIn clinical studies, we found that age between 56 and 63 years, ICIs combination therapy, and history of ICIs treatment were significantly associated with an increased risk of IMH. In the FAERS database, we observed that females, report areas, cancer type, ICIs drug type, concomitant autoimmune disease, the concomitant use of anti-hypertension drugs, and the concomitant use of CTLA-4 inhibitors or targeted therapy drugs may be potential risk factors for ICIs-related hepatic irAEs. The predictive model for ICIs-related liver adverse reactions established in this study has good performance and potential clinical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40019709What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.