Surgery and Prognostic Factors of Patients With Epidural Spinal Cord Compression Caused by Hepatocellular Carcinoma Metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. A retrospective study of 36 patients with metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) of the mobile spine was performed by survival analysis. Objective. To discuss the factors that may affect outcomes of patients with HCC spinal metastases. Summary of Background Data. HCC is a rare tumor in Western countries. However, HCC is common in Far East (Taiwan, Korea, mainland China), where the hepatitis B virus is epidemic. As the mean survival time of patients with HCC has largely increased in recent years, it is now more common to encounter a patient with epidural spinal cord compression caused by HCC spinal metastases in clinic. Methods. The univariate and multivariate analyses of various clinical factors were performed to identify independent variables that could predict prognosis. The survival rate was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences were analyzed by the log-rank test. Factors with P values of 0.1 or less were subjected to multivariate analysis for survival rate by multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis. Results. A total of 36 patients with metastatic HCC of the mobile spine were included in the study. Age (≤45 yr/>45 yr), duration of preoperative symptoms (<6 mo/≥6 mo), preoperative Frankel score (A–C/D–E), Tomita score (5–7/8–10), and bisphosphonate treatment were suggested as the potential prognostic factors through univariate analysis. However, as they were submitted to the multivariate Cox regression model, only Tomita score was found as an independent prognostic factor. Conclusion. Tomita score no more than 7 is a favorable prognostic factor for HCC metastases in the mobile spine. Level of Evidence: 4 A total of 36 patients with spinal cord compression caused by hepatocellular carcinoma spinal metastases who received an operation in our department were identified. Five potential prognostic factors were identified through univariate analysis, whereas only Tomita score was identified as an independent prognostic factor for overall survival via multivariate analysis
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".