ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluating the efficacy of using large language models in preoperative prediction of microvascular invasion in HCC: a multicenter study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence and personalised medicine in liver cancer.Journal of hepatology · 2026Review
- Machine learning outperforms large language models for survival prediction in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Empowering liver cancer diagnosis and treatment with foundation models: technological innovation and clinical practice.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026Review
- Large Language Models for Preoperative Microvascular Invasion Prediction in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Comparison with Radiologists and Treatment Outcomes.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Primary liver cancer is the sixth most commonly diagnosed cancer globally and the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common type of primary liver cancer, and microvascular invasion (MVI) is a significant risk factor affecting postoperative prognosis in HCC. However, accurately predicting MVI preoperatively remains a challenge. This study aims to evaluate the application of large language models (LLMs), specifically ChatGPT 4o, in predicting MVI in HCC and to compare its performance with traditional clinical models. In this retrospective study, 300 HCC patients who underwent curative liver resection between June 2018 and December 2018 were selected at two centers. The collected clinical data included age, gender, HBV infection, liver cirrhosis, AFP levels, and more. ChatGPT 4o were used to process the clinical data of the patients and predict MVI. Subsequently, the predictive results of the ChatGPT 4o were compared with machine learning models, the ROC curves were plotted, and AUC was calculated. The results showed that the AUC of the ChatGPT 4o was 0.755. Machine learning algorithms use Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, Logistic Regression, XGBoost and Decision Tree, the AUC of 5 machine learning algorithms was range from 0.534 to 0.624. ChatGPT 4o achieved the highest AUC and showed statistically significant differences compared to Support Vector Machine, Logistic Regression and Decision Tree. Additionally, the predictive results of the ChatGPT 4o effectively stratified the postoperative overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of HCC patients. LLMs have demonstrated significant predictive capabilities for MVI in HCC and for risk stratification regarding postoperative OS and RFS. These advancements possess substantial potential to enhance preoperative management and make surgical planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.