Cholangiocarcinoma: Has There been Any Progress?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cholangiocarcinoma is the second most common primary hepatic tumour after hepatocellular carcinoma. Primary sclerosing cholangitis is one of the most commonly recognized risk factors for cholangiocarcinoma; however, approximately 90% of patients have no identifiable risk factors. Extrahepatic type is its most common presentation. Cholangiocarcinoma is considered to be a devastating disease, with a poor survival rate and few therapeutic options. Although surgical resection has been considered the best treatment option for localized cholangiocarcinoma, local recurrences of this cancer are very common, and imply persistent micro-metastatic disease in lymph nodes or at surgical margins, even after extended surgical resection. Consequently, the five year survival rate after attempted curative resection is only 20% to 40%. Early studies of liver transplantation for cholangiocarcinoma did not show a survival benefit and, currently, this tumour is considered to be an absolute contraindication for liver transplantation in most transplant centres worldwide. Recently, neoadjuvant chemoradiation in combination with liver transplantation for highly selected patients with cholangiocarcinoma has shown impressive results, with five-year survival rates at approximately 76% to 82%--similar to other standard indications for liver transplantation, such as hepatocellular carcinoma or hepatitis C-induced cirrhosis. However, this success of liver transplantation applies to only a subset of patients and most of the data originated from a single centre. Wider application of this strategy, especially for patients with potentially resectable disease, will require validation by other centres.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".