MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma

2007· article· en· W2157241878 on OpenAlexaff
Morris Sherman

Bibliographic record

VenueHepatology Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHepatocellular carcinomaMedicineCirrhosisInternal medicinePopulationScreening testDiseaseLiver diseaseCarcinomaGastroenterologyEnvironmental healthPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews methodological issues around screening for hepatocellular carcinoma, and discusses selection of the at-risk group, which screening test to use, and how frequently it should be applied. Screening of patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma should be undertaken using ultrasonography applied at six-month intervals. Patients at risk include all those with cirrhosis, and certain non-cirrhotic patients withchronic hepatitis B. In this population, screening has been shown to reduce disease-specific mortality. Although data do not exist for other populations, screening is nonetheless advised because small cancers can be cured with appreciable frequency.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHepatology ResearchSame topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207