Hepatocellular Carcinoma in a Large Canadian Urban Centre: Stage at Treatment and Its Potential Determinants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a significant difference in tumour stage between patients initially found with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at a tertiary hepatobiliary centre and patients referred with tumours detected elsewhere; and to determine variables associated with referral in a palliative stage. METHODS: A retrospective review of 12,199 patients seen at a liver clinic over a 10.5-year period revealed 236 patients with HCC first detected internally (internal) and 163 who were referred with a known mass (referred). All patients were staged at the time of treatment using the Milan criteria for transplantation and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system. Curative disease was defined as BCLC stages 0 and A. In the referred group, univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine which of the following factors were significantly associated with presentation in a palliative stage: age, sex, ethnicity, cause of liver disease, presence of cirrhosis, location of residence and quintile of neighbourhood income. RESULTS: In comparing the internal versus referred patients, significant differences were found in the proportion of patients fulfilling Milan criteria (72% versus 36%), those with curative disease (75% versus 49%) and those with very early stage tumour (BCLC stage 0, 23% versus 7%); all differences were statistically significant (P<0.001). In patients referred for treatment of HCC from an outside institution, none of the variables tested were associated with presentation in a palliative stage. CONCLUSION: Patients with HCC referred to a liver treatment centre were more likely to be in palliative stages than those whose tumour was detected internally.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".