MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964696543 · doi:10.1007/s00268-005-0608-6

Factors Associated with Disease Survival after Surgical Resection in Chinese Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

2006· article· en· W1964696543 on OpenAlexaff
Qiang Li, Huikai Li, Kelly Butt, Peter Wang, Xishan Hao

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Surgery · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHepatocellular carcinomaVascular surgeryAbdominal surgeryHazard ratioCardiothoracic surgerySurgeryMultivariate analysisProportional hazards modelUnivariate analysisInternal medicineHepatectomyOverall survivalCarcinomaResectionCardiac surgeryGastroenterologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this cohort study was to investigate clinical outcome and prognostic factors after surgical resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1,157 HCC patients undergoing hepatic resection between 1998 and 2003 were included in this study. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to examine factors affecting clinical outcome and recurrence. RESULTS: Surgical procedures consisted of 1,011 (87.4%) anatomical resections, including 205 (17.7%) extended hepatectomies, 324 (28.0%) hemihepatectomies, 482 (41.7%) segmental resections, and 146 (12.6%) local resections. The results suggest that 56.6% of patients had a recurrence of HCC during the study period and the main recurrence type was intrahepatic (542; 83.1%). The median survival time was 45 months. The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall disease-free survival rates for the study population were 74%, 47%, and 39% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of proportional hazard analyses suggest that tumor size, number of nodules and vascular invasion were significant predictors for poor 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of SurgerySame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207