MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053400966 · doi:10.1016/j.carj.2009.12.009

Ablative Technologies in the Management of Patients with Primary and Secondary Liver Cancer: An Overview

2010· review· en· W2053400966 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

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Inactivation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkVancouver General HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryoablationMedicineMicrowave ablationRadiofrequency ablationAblative caseContext (archaeology)Irreversible electroporationAblationModalitiesCatheter ablationMedical physicsRadiologySurgeryRadiation therapyElectroporationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interventional ablative technologies have played an increasingly important role in the management of patients with primary or secondary liver malignancies. Ethanol and acetic acid ablation were the primary modalities available 2 decades ago. Today, several new technologies are available, including radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation, and microwave ablation. Radiofrequency ablation is the most widely practiced, however, cryoablation and microwave ablation are reasonable choices in certain situations. Irreversible electroporation is a newer technique, which has yet to enter clinical practice, but shows promising preliminary results. Herein, we provide a brief overview of the above-mentioned technologies with a focus on principles of ablation and technique. We also describe the use of these techniques in the context of cytoreduction, a noncurative approach aimed at reducing the overall tumour burden and providing concomitant survival benefit.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.285 · 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