MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Radiation Therapy for Liver Tumors: Ready for Inclusion in Guidelines?

2014· review· en· W1993411111 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

VenueThe Oncologist · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyContext (archaeology)Liver transplantationHepatocellular carcinomaRadiofrequency ablationSelective internal radiation therapyRadiologyTransplantationSurgeryAblationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the historically limited role of radiotherapy in the management of primary hepatic malignancies, modern advances in treatment design and delivery have renewed enthusiasm for radiation as a potentially curative treatment modality. Surgical resection and/or liver transplantation are traditionally regarded as the most effective forms of therapy, although the majority of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma present with locally advanced or unresectable disease on the basis of local vascular invasion or inadequate baseline hepatobiliary function. In this context, many efforts have focused on nonoperative treatment approaches including novel systemic therapies, transarterial chemoembolization, ethanol ablation, radiofrequency ablation, and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). This review aims to summarize modern advances in radiotherapy, particularly SBRT, in the treatment of primary hepatic malignancies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.387
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.058 · 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