Meta-analysis of clinical outcome and safety of repeat hepatectomy versus first hepatectomy for patient with live metastases from colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare clinical outcomes and safety of repeat hepatectomy for patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer with those of a first liver resection.Methods The literature was searched for all studies reported on repeat hepatectomy versus a first liver resection patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer between January 1992 to June 2010.According to inclusion and exclusion criteria,the clinical data were extracted.Trials were assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Score.Analysis were performed by RevMan 4.2.Results Twenty-two clinical studies were included in our systematic reviews.Compared with the first liver resection group,operation time of the repeat hepatectomy group was longer by 39 minutes[95% CI(-65.21,-23.13),P0.00001],intraoperatie blood transfusions was longer by 1.1 U [95% CI(-1.75,-0.79),P0.00001].There were no significant differences in the number of patient of length of intensive care unit stay,blood loss,length of hospitalization.There were no significant differences in the morbidity rate of post-operation complications,1,3,5-year overall survival,disease-free surial,the incidence of recurrence between the two groups.Conclusions Repeat hepatectomy for patients with colorectal cancer metastases is safe and provides survival benefit equal to that of a first liver resection.Repeat hepatectomy is first selection scheme,but in order to get a more effective long-term outcome,further consider comprehensive treatment should be considered.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".