ArticleHepatology international2026
A noninvasive model for predicting intrahepatic venovenous shunts before HVPG measurement: a multiple cohort study.
Article in Hepatology international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Re-examining the incremental benefit of TACE-TKI-PD-1 triplet therapy: time-related bias and treatment pathways in a real-world HCC cohort.Hepatology international · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to construct a machine learning (ML) model to facilitate non-invasive identification of moderate-to-severe intrahepatic venovenous shunts (MS-IHVS) before hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurement.
methodsA total of 605 patients receiving HVPG measurement were retrospectively included for model development. Two validation cohorts were used: an FN-validation cohort (n = 194; retrospectively enrolled) with both wedged hepatic venous pressure (WHVP) and fine-needle (21-22G) portal venous pressure (FN-PVP) measurements, and a TIPS-validation cohort (n = 92; prospectively enrolled with WHVP and direct PVP measurements. Nine ML and eleven stacking ensemble models were developed. Performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, F1-score, calibration plots, confusion matrices, and decision-curve analysis. The Shapley Additive Explanation was used for model interpretation.
resultsFour predictors were selected for model development, including portal vein thrombosis, spontaneous portosystemic shunts, prothrombin time, and number of endoscopic treatments. Across all single and stacking models, the stacking ensemble model combining Random Forest (RF) and Gradient Boosting (GB) performed best (AUC 0.907, 95%CI 0.858-0.945). A Comprehensive Rank also placed RF + GB first. AUCs were 0.781 in FN-validation and 0.889 in TIPS-validation. Model-based risk stratification showed markedly reduced WHVP-PVP/FN-PVP agreement and correlation (intraclass correlation coefficient for agreement 0.314 and 0.143; r = 0.579 and 0.347) in high-risk group compared with low-risk group.
conclusionsThis RF + GB stacking model effectively identified the risk of MS-IHVS in patients with sinusoidal PHT, providing a powerful tool for early detection and avoiding unnecessary invasive examination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41787000What 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.