The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of the prognostic value of inflammation-based prognostic scores in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Inflammation-based prognostic scores including the Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) are associated with survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of these inflammation-based prognostic scores in patients with HCC. METHODS: In total, 150 patients with newly diagnosed HCC were prospectively evaluated. Patients were divided according to the GPS, modified GPS, NLR, platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), Prognostic Index (PI), and PNI. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) was calculated to compare the predictive ability of each of the scoring systems. A univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to identify the clinicopathological variables associated with overall survival. RESULTS: The GPS consistently had a higher AUC value at 6 months (0.768), 12 months (0.787), and 24 months (0.758) in comparison with other inflammation-based prognostic scores. A multivariate analysis showed that the GPS was independently associated with overall survival. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the GPS, an inflammation-based prognostic score, is an independent marker of poor prognosis in patients with HCC and is superior to the other inflammation-based prognostic scores in terms of prognostic ability.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mantovani, A., Allavena, P., Sica, A., & Balkwill, F. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature07205 · Cited by 11,399
EASL–EORTC Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma
European Association for the Study of the Liver, & European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (2012) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2011.12.001 · Cited by 5,218
Cited by
Hu, B., Yang, X.-R., Xu, Y., Sun, Y.-F., Sun, C., Guo, W., Zhang, X., Wang, W.-M., Qiu, S.-J., Zhou, J., et al. (2014) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-0442 · Cited by 2,493
Hong, X., Cui, B., Wang, M., Yang, Z., Wang, L., & Xu, Q. (2015) · The Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine · doi:10.1620/tjem.236.297 · Cited by 326
Tong, Y.-S., Tan, J., Zhou, X.-L., Song, Y.-Q., & Song, Y.-J. (2017) · Journal of Translational Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12967-017-1326-1 · Cited by 233
Yamagishi, T., Fujimoto, N., Nishi, H., Miyamoto, Y., Hara, N., Asano, M., Fuchimoto, Y., Wada, S., Kitamura, K., Ozaki, S., et al. (2015) · Lung Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.07.014 · Cited by 61
Metadata
- Authors
- Kinoshita, A., Onoda, H., Imai, N., Iwaku, A., Oishi, M., Fushiya, N., Koike, K., Nishino, H., & Tajiri, H.
- Venue
- British Journal of Cancer
- Published
- 2012-08-09
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 988-993
- ISSN
- 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-1827
- OpenAlex
- W1991431093
- Cited by
- 293
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of the prognostic value of inflammation-based prognostic scores in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/bjc.2012.354
- The paper
- Kinoshita, A., Onoda, H., Imai, N., Iwaku, A., Oishi, M., Fushiya, N., Koike, K., Nishino, H., & Tajiri, H. (2012). Comparison of the prognostic value of inflammation-based prognostic scores in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.354
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
