SynthesisBMC cancer2026
Diagnostic performance and generalizability of preoperative prediction models for lymph node metastasis in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multimodal evidence synthesis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
introductionAccurate preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is crucial for clinical decision-making, but the performance of existing models varies. This study, through a systematic review and meta-analysis, aims to evaluate the comprehensive diagnostic efficacy of these models and explore the key methodological factors influencing their performance, thereby providing empirical evidence for the optimization of future models.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to November 4, 2025. Studies developing or validating preoperative LNM prediction models in ICC were eligible. Methodological quality was assessed using the PROBAST tool. A bivariate random‑effects model was used to pool sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC-AUC). Meta‑regression and subgroup analyses were conducted to examine sources of heterogeneity.
resultsFourteen retrospective studies comprising 31 prediction models were included. Based on 11 independent models prioritized for optimal validation rigor, the primary pooled sensitivity was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71–0.87) and specificity was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.72–0.82), with an overall SROC‑AUC of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80–0.87). Secondary exploratory heterogeneity analyses indicated that model category, data source, and algorithm type were key moderators of performance. Specificity dropped markedly in external test sets (0.68) compared with internal validation sets (0.82). This analysis showed no significant publication bias (p > 0.05).
conclusionPreoperative prediction models show promising diagnostic potential for LNM detection in ICC, but their performance is highly dependent on feature categories and validation rigor. The marked decline in specificity upon external testing highlights an important gap in model generalizability. Future work should prioritize prospective, multi‑center external validation and focus on developing robust, interpretable models with standardized reporting to enable clinical translation.
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.