Identifying candidates with favorable prognosis following liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Data mining analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The optimal cutoff of each value in configuring selection criteria for pre-transplant assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains uncertain. METHODS: To build a predictive model for recurrent HCC, we performed data mining analysis on patients who underwent LT for HCC at University Health Network (n = 246). The model was externally validated using a cohort from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database (n = 9,769). RESULTS: Among 246 patients, 14.6% (n = 36) experienced recurrent HCC within 2.5 years post-LT. The risk prediction model for recurrent HCC identified two subgroups with low-risk (total tumor diameter [TTD] <4 cm and serum alpha-fetoprotein [AFP] <73 ng/ml, n = 135) and with high-risk (TTD >4 cm and/or AFP >73 ng/ml, n = 111). The reproducibility of the model was validated through the SRTR database; overall patient survival rate was significantly better in low-risk group than high-risk group (P < 0.0001). Using Cox regression model, this yardstick, not Milan criteria, was revealed to efficiently predict post-transplant survival independent of underlying characteristics (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Grouping LT candidates with pre-LT HCC by the cutoffs of TTD 4 cm and AFP 73 ng/ml which were unearthed by data mining analysis efficiently classify patients according by the post-transplant prognosis.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".