Transplantation and Surgical Strategies in Patients With Neuroendocrine Liver Metastases: Protocol of Four Systematic Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatic metastases of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are considered a major prognostic factor associated with significantly reduced survival compared to patients without liver metastases. Several surgical and nonsurgical strategies are present to treat resectable and nonresectable liver metastases, some of which have the potential to cure liver mestatases. OBJECTIVE: The aims of the four systematic reviews presented in the paper are to determine the effectiveness of liver resection versus nonsurgical treatment of patients with NET liver metastases, to investigate the impact of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment options on the tumor-free survival, to assess the role of liver transplantation in patients presenting with unresectable bilateral hepatic metastases, and to evaluate the role of primary tumor resection in presence of unresectable liver metastases. METHODS: Literature search was performed on Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, and the Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials). No language restrictions were applied. Randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective comparative cohort studies, and case-control studies will be used for the qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the systematic reviews. Case series will be only included in a separate database for descriptive purposes. RESULTS: This study is ongoing and presents a protocol system of four systematic reviews that will assist in determining the effectiveness of liver resection versus nonsurgical treatment of patients with NET liver metastases. This study is also assumed to investigate the impact of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment options on the tumor-free survival, the role of liver transplantation, and the relevance of primary tumor resection in presence of unresectable liver metastasis. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic reviews will show the current evidence based on the effectiveness of surgical strategies in patients with NET liver metastases and serve as basis for clinical practice guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The systematic reviews have been prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: liver resection (CRD42012002652); http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42012002652 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6LQUqMnqL,). neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment strategies (CRD42012002656); http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42012002656 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6LQVvEHuf). liver transplantation (CRD42012002655); http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42012002655 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6LQW7WFo3,). resection of the locoregional primary NET (CRD42012002654); http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42012002654 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6LQWEIuGe).
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 | 0.070 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.003 |
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".