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
This review aims to discuss the appropriateness of liver biopsy in two frequent liver diseases, hepatitis C and alcoholic liver disease. The medical literature, published between 1965 and 1999, was reviewed by using MEDLINE. Only 0.1% of the publications were devoted specifically to the appropriateness of liver biopsy. Not all studies observed a significant agreement among doctors on the decision to use liver biopsy. Therefore, there is a possibility that hepatologists have significant, heterogeneous opinions concerning the appropriateness of liver biopsy. Appropriateness should be evaluated for different techniques such as percutaneous liver biopsy, guided or not by ultrasonography, and the types of needles, automatic or not. The present paper reviews the evaluation of liver biopsy appropriateness in the real world, the adverse events and mortality of liver biopsy, and the appropriateness of liver biopsy in alcoholic liver disease and chronic hepatitis C. The authors conclude that liver biopsy is used extensively, but its appropriateness has not been evaluated perfectly. Therefore, further evaluation of the appropriateness of liver biopsy in the practical algorithm of such diseases is needed.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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