MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987965430 · doi:10.1002/lt.21078

Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Transplantation

2007· article· en· W1987965430 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLiver Transplantation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMilan criteriaHepatocellular carcinomaLiver transplantationPathologicalNomogramCirrhosisInternal medicineTransplantationGastroenterologyMultivariate analysisSurgeryOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Milan and University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) criteria are used to select patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for liver transplantation (LT). Recurrent HCC is a significant cause of death. There is no widely accepted pathological assessment strategy to predict recurrent HCC after transplantation. This study compares the pathology of patients meeting Milan and UCSF criteria and develops a pathological score and nomogram to assess the risk of recurrent HCC after transplantation. All explanted livers with HCC from our center over the 18-yr period 1985 to 2003 were assessed for multiple pathological features and relevant clinical data were recorded; multivariate analysis was performed to determine features associated with recurrent HCC. Using pathological variables that independently predicted recurrent HCC, a pathological score and nomogram were developed to determine the probability of recurrent HCC. Of 75 cases analyzed, 50 (67%) met Milan criteria, 9 (12%) met only UCSF criteria and 16 (21%) met neither criteria based on explant pathology. There were 20 cases of recurrent HCC and the mean follow-up was 8 yr. Recurrent HCC was more common (67 vs. 12%; P < 0.001) and survival was lower (15 vs. 83% at 5 yr; 15 vs. 55% at 8 yr; P < 0.001) with those who met only UCSF criteria, compared to those who met Milan criteria. Cryptogenic cirrhosis (25 vs. 5%; P = 0.015), preoperative AFP >1,000 ng/mL (20 vs. 0%; P < 0.001) and postoperative OKT3 use (40 vs. 15%; P = 0.017) were more common among patients with recurrent HCC. While microvascular invasion was the strongest pathological predictor of recurrent HCC, tumor size >or=3 cm (P = 0.004; odds ratio [OR] = 7.42), nuclear grade (P = 0.044; OR = 3.25), microsatellitosis (P = 0.020; OR = 4.82), and giant/bizarre cells (P = 0.028; OR = 4.78) also predicted recurrent HCC independently from vascular invasion. The score and nomogram stratified the risk of recurrent HCC into 3 tiers: low (<5%), intermediate (40-65%), and high (>95%). In conclusion, compared to patients meeting Milan criteria, patients who meet only UCSF criteria have a worse survival and an increased rate of recurrent HCC with long-term follow-up, as well as more frequent occurrence of adverse histopathological features, such as microvascular invasion. Application of a pathological score and nomogram could help identify patients at increased risk for tumor recurrence, who may benefit from increased surveillance or adjuvant therapy.

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.

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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.208 · 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