Controversies in Surveillance and Early Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The surveillance of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an established approach to detect early cancers in patients with defined risks. However, there are still varied controversies and issues to be addressed regarding the optimal surveillance methods and interval. Moreover, there are discrepancies in the opinion or practice of HCC surveillance between Eastern and Western countries. The Western strategy of ultrasound without a biomarker such as α-fetoprotein reflects the cost-effective utilization of limited resources. On the contrary, combined measurements of biomarkers in Eastern countries are based on the assumption that increased detection of early cancers could result in an overall survival benefit. To address this complicated issue, a prospective study comparing different surveillance tests might be required. More importantly, discovery of a novel biomarker with higher performance would be an alternative.
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 | 0.093 | 0.190 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".