The estimated number of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma selected for liver transplantation using expanded selection criteria
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
Recently, several groups have introduced expanded criteria for selection of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prior to transplant, but the exact number of potential newly recruited patients remains unclear. This registry-based study assessed 270 patients diagnosed with HCC. The potential number of transplant candidates was based on age (< or =65 years), absence of metastases and macro-vascular invasion, and on 12 previously published, expanded selection criteria. A wide range of increase in the number of transplant candidates was observed (12-63% when compared with the number of such candidates who would have been selected solely based on the Milan criteria). The most conservative criteria were Seoul (Kwon, 2007; increase of 12%), Valencia (Silva, 2008; 16%), total tumor volume/alpha-fetoprotein (Toso, 2009; 20%) and UCSF (Yao, 2007; 20%). This data will assist Centers and policy agencies in predicting the need for resources linked to an expansion of criteria.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it