Advances in loco-regional palliation of unresectable cholangiocarcinomas.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cholangiocarcinoma (CC) represents the second most common primary hepatic malignancy after hepatocellular carcinoma, accounting for 10% to 15% of primary liver tumors. Its prognosis is often poor due to its late presentation and its relative resistance to current chemotherapy and radiotherapy regimens. At the time of diagnosis, more than half of the patients are not candidates for surgical therapy due to either invasion of vascular structures or distant metastases. Therefore, for a large proportion of patients, palliation remains the only option for better quality of life and, in some circumstances, longer survival. The main goals of palliative interventions for CC are: restoration of the biliary drainage and resolution of pruritis caused by obstructive jaundice, improvement of the nutritional status and reduction of pain. During the last decades, novel therapies have been introduced to optimize the management of patients with unresectable CC. These therapies can be resource intensive and have some adverse effects; therefore patient selection is crucial. This article discusses the current options for palliation of CC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".