MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321097716 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000001431

The Prognostic Value of Platelet Count in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

2015· review· en· W2321097716 on OpenAlex
Qing Pang, Kai Qu, Jingyao Zhang, Sidong Song, Sushun Liu, Ming‐Hui Tai, Hao-Chen Liu, Chang Liu

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHarvard University
KeywordsMedicineHepatocellular carcinomaInternal medicineHazard ratioConfidence intervalMeta-analysisCirrhosisGastroenterologyProportional hazards modelPublication biasOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thrombocytopenia has been acknowledged to be a crucial risk factor for cirrhosis formation and hepatocarcinogenesis in chronic liver diseases. However, to date, the association between platelet count (PLT) and the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains inconsistent and controversial. The aim of the present study was to determine whether PLT could be used as a useful predictor of survival in patients with HCC. We performed systematic review in online databases, including PubMed, EmBase, and Web of Science, from inception until 2014. Studies were included if a statistical relationship was investigated between PLT and survival for HCC, and hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for overall survival (OS) or recurrence-free survival (RFS) were provided. The quality of each included study was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa scale score. To synthesize these studies, a random-effects model or a fixed-effects model was applied as appropriate. Then, we calculated heterogeneity, performed sensitivity analysis, tested publication bias, and did subgrouped and meta-regression analysis. Finally, we identified 33 eligible articles (published from 1998 to 2014) involved 5545 patients by retrieval. A low level of preoperative PLT was found to be significantly associated with a poor survival of HCC. Irrespective of the therapy used, the pooled HRs for OS and RFS were 1.41 (95% CI, 1.14-1.75) and 1.44 (95% CI, 1.13-1.83), respectively. Specifically, in patients who underwent liver resection, the pooled HRs for OS and RFS were 1.67 (95% CI, 1.22-2.27) and 1.44 (95% CI, 1.04-1.99), respectively. Furthermore, patients with preoperative thrombocytopenia (PLT < 100 × 10⁹/L) had a worse OS (HR: 1.73, 95% CI, 1.29-2.32) and RFS (HR: 1.57, 95% CI, 1.31-1.87) in comparison with patients without thrombocytopenia. All our findings showed no significant changes due to the removal of any study or the use of an opposite-effects model, and there was no significant publication bias. The limitations of this meat-analysis were nonuniform cut-off values of PLT, high between-study heterogeneities, potential confounders, and a bias of publication year. A low preoperative PLT level results in an unfavorable outcome in HCC. PLT is a simple, inexpensive, and useful predictor of survival in patients with HCC.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.213 · 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