Treatment of metastatic liver tumors using stereotactic ablative radiotherapy
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prognosis of patients with metastatic liver disease remains dismal with a median survival of only 6-12 mo. As 80%-90% of patients are not candidates for surgical therapy, there is a need for effective non-surgical therapies that would improve outcomes in these patients. The body of evidence related to the use of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in metastatic liver disease has substantially grown and evolved over the past decade. This review summarizes the current evidence supporting liver SABR with particular attention given to patient selection, target delineation, organ at risk dose volume constraints, response evaluation imaging and the various SABR techniques for delivering ablative radiotherapy to the liver. Even though it is unclear what dose-fractionation scheme, delivery system, concomitant therapy or patient selection strategy yields the optimum liver SABR outcomes, clear and growing evidence is available that SABR is a safe and effective therapy for the treatment of oligometastatic liver disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it