MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1548590980 · doi:10.1002/hep.27548

Multicenter randomized controlled trial of percutaneous cryoablation versus radiofrequency ablation in hepatocellular carcinoma

2014· article· en· W1548590980 on OpenAlex
Chunping Wang, Huaming Wang, Wuwei Yang, Kaiwen Hu, Hui Xie, Ke‐Qin Hu, Wenlin Bai, Yinying Lu, Zhen Zeng, Min Lou, Hong Wang, Xudong Gao, Xiujuan Chang, Linjing An, Jianhui Qu, Li Jin, Yongping Yang

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHepatology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCryoablationHepatocellular carcinomaMedicineRadiofrequency ablationPercutaneousRandomized controlled trialAblationRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is considered a curative treatment option for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Growing data have demonstrated that cryoablation represents a safe and effective alternative therapy for HCC, but no randomized controlled trial (RCT) has been reported to compare cryoablation with RFA in HCC treatment. The present study was a multicenter RCT aimed to compare the outcomes of percutaneous cryoablation with RFA for the treatment of HCC. In all, 360 patients with Child-Pugh class A or B cirrhosis and one or two HCC lesions ≤ 4 cm, treatment-naïve, without metastasis were randomly assigned to cryoablation (n = 180) or RFA (n = 180). The primary endpoints were local tumor progression at 3 years after treatment and safety. Local tumor progression rates at 1, 2, and 3 years were 3%, 7%, and 7% for cryoablation and 9%, 11%, and 11% for RFA, respectively (P = 0.043). For lesions >3 cm in diameter, the local tumor progression rate was significantly lower in the cryoablation group versus the RFA group (7.7% versus 18.2%, P = 0.041). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 97%, 67%, and 40% for cryoablation and 97%, 66%, and 38% for RFA, respectively (P = 0.747). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year tumor-free survival rates were 89%, 54%, and 35% in the cryoablation group and 84%, 50%, and 34% in the RFA group, respectively (P = 0.628). Multivariate analyses demonstrated that Child-Pugh class B and distant intrahepatic recurrence were significant negative predictors for overall survival. Major complications occurred in seven patients (3.9%) following cryoablation and in six patients (3.3%) following RFA (P = 0.776). CONCLUSION: Cryoablation resulted in a significantly lower local tumor progression than RFA, although both cryoablation and RFA were equally safe and effective, with similar 5-year survival rates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it