MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162377624 · doi:10.3109/03091902.2012.754510

Radiofrequency ablation technique in the treatment of liver tumours: review and future issues

2013· review· en· W2162377624 on OpenAlexafffund
B. Zhang, Mike Moser, Er-Wei Zhang, Wenjun Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Engineering & Technology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsRoyal University HospitalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsAblationThermal ablationRadiofrequency ablationRf ablationMedicineTumor ablationComputer scienceMedical physicsBiomedical engineeringRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thermal ablation is increasingly being used for treatment of liver tumours. Among the techniques of thermal ablation, radiofrequency ablation (RF) is undoubtedly being used most frequently because of its advantages, such as morbidity and mortality rates, effective tumour ablation, as well as being less time-consuming. This paper presents the state of the art of RF ablation technique. This includes the theoretical development, experimental study and clinical application of the radiofrequency ablation technique. First, it introduces the principle of this technique. Second, it shows the development of this technique and valuable achievements. These achievements include the device, strategy of operation and extension to other diseases. Third, it concludes future issues to be addressed in order to further advance this technique.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations37
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Engineering & TechnologySame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207