ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Limited incremental value and cross-cohort transferability of CT radiomics for survival prediction after TACE in hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate whether pretreatment CT radiomics adds information for overall survival (OS) prediction among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), and assess frozen imaging-model performance in an independent cohort.
methodsThis retrospective study included 221 WAW-TACE and 98 HCC-TACE-SEG patients with pretreatment arterial and portal venous CT. Incremental value of a tumor-radiomics Random Survival Forest score (R1) beyond cohort-specific clinical Cox models (C0) was evaluated within each cohort using 5-fold cross-validation repeated 10 times. External validation was restricted to frozen WAW-trained R1 models (Top-K = 5, 10, 15) applied to HCC-TACE-SEG without refitting; the combined C0 + R1 model was not externally validated.
resultsWAW-TACE included 162 deaths and HCC-TACE-SEG 86 deaths. In WAW-TACE, C0, R1 Top-K = 15, and C0 + R1 achieved C-indices of 0.646 ± 0.043, 0.593 ± 0.049, and 0.639 ± 0.045, respectively. Corresponding HCC-TACE-SEG estimates were 0.496 ± 0.087, 0.530 ± 0.072, and 0.495 ± 0.094. Thus, R1 did not consistently improve cohort-specific clinical reference models. In frozen external application, Top-K = 5, 10, and 15 achieved C-indices of 0.463 (95% CI 0.397-0.532), 0.535 (0.468-0.608), and 0.528 (0.460-0.598), respectively.
conclusionThe evaluated models showed no consistent incremental value for OS prediction within these TACE cohorts and limited frozen-model discrimination in the clinically distinct HCC-TACE-SEG cohort. These findings do not support clinical use of these models or establish a general limitation of CT radiomics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42867540What 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.