Risk prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: The ADRESS‐HCC risk model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: All patients with cirrhosis are at risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This risk is not uniform because other patient-related factors influence the risk of HCC. The objective of the current study was to develop an HCC risk prediction model to estimate the 1-year probability of HCC to assist with patient counseling. METHODS: Between 2002 and 2011, a cohort of 34,932 patients with cirrhosis was identified from a national liver transplantation waitlist database from the United States. Cox proportional hazards regression methods were used to develop and validate a risk prediction model for incident HCC. In the validation cohort, discrimination and calibration of the model was examined. External validation was conducted using patients with cirrhosis who were enrolled in the Hepatitis C Antiviral Long-term Treatment against Cirrhosis (HALT-C) study. RESULTS: HCC developed in 1960 patients (5.6%) during a median follow-up of 1.3 years (interquartile range, 0.47 years-2.83 years). Six baseline clinical variables, including age, diabetes, race, etiology of cirrhosis, sex, and severity (ADRESS) of liver dysfunction were independently associated with HCC and were used to develop the ADRESS-HCC risk model. C-indices in the derivation and internal validation cohorts were 0.704 and 0.691, respectively. In the validation cohort, the predicted cumulative incidence of HCC by the ADRESS-HCC model closely matched the observed data. In patients with cirrhosis in the HALT-C cohort, the model stratified patients correctly according to the risk of developing HCC within 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The ADRESS-HCC risk model is a useful tool for predicting the 1-year risk of HCC among patients with cirrhosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it