Evidence Hub

Effectiveness of Machine Learning in Detecting Vessels Encapsulating Tumor Clusters in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Shui H, Wu W, Xie Z, Yang B, Deng J, Tang D

Journal of medical Internet research, 2026

6,755 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background: Vessels encapsulating tumor clusters (VETC) are significantly associated with poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, identifying VETC early remains challenging. Recently, machine learning has shown promise for VETC detection, but their diagnostic accuracy lacks systematic validation.

Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of machine learning models for detecting VETC in patients with HCC.

Methods: The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed were searched up to June 21, 2025. Eligible studies focused on machine learning models for HCC VETC diagnosis. Studies that merely analyzed risk factors or lacked outcome measures were excluded. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias. A bivariate mixed-effects model was used for a meta-analysis based on 2×2 diagnostic tables. Subgroup analyses were performed according to modeling variables (nonradiomic vs radiomic features) and model types (traditional machine learning vs deep learning).

Results: This meta-analysis included 31 studies comprising 6755 patients with HCC (2699 VETC-positive). Nineteen studies used machine learning models based on nonradiomic features, and 12 used radiomic features (including deep learning). In the validation set, the nonradiomic model demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI 0.66-0.78), specificity of 0.74 (95% CI 0.68-0.80), and an area under the summary…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 6,755 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free