MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2519810790 · doi:10.1093/jjco/hyw133

Early hepatocellular carcinoma as a signaling lesion for subsequent malignancy

2016· article· en· W2519810790 on OpenAlexaff
Yutaka Midorikawa, Tadatoshi Takayama, Tokio Higaki, Hisashi Nakayama, Masakazu Yamamoto, Shun‐ichi Ariizumi, Kazuaki Shimada, Norihiro Kokudo, Shingo Tsuji, Kaoru Tsuchiya, Masayuki Kurosaki, Namiki Izumi

Bibliographic record

VenueJapanese Journal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsPancreas Centre (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHepatocellular carcinomaMedicineInternal medicineGastroenterologyLiver cancerHazard ratioCarcinomaHepatitis BCumulative incidenceHepatitis CConfidence intervalCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Early diagnosis and treatment of cancer may contribute substantially to complete cure, but it remains unknown whether treatment of early hepatocellular carcinoma can actually result in cure. This study was performed to clarify the cancer risk of the background liver after treating early hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: Early hepatocellular carcinoma is defined as very well-differentiated cancer containing Glisson's triad. The cumulative incidence of classical hepatocellular carcinoma, hypervascular liver cancer detected on imaging studies, after resection of early hepatocellular carcinoma positive for anti-hepatitis C antibody (early hepatocellular carcinoma group, n = 105) was compared with that in patients with chronic liver disease positive for anti-hepatitis C antibody (control group, n = 751) and propensity score-matched patients after resection of classical hepatocellular carcinoma (classical hepatocellular carcinoma group, n = 105). RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 4.8 years (range, 0.3-15.0), the cumulative incidence of classical hepatocellular carcinoma at 5 years was 56.9% (95% confidence interval, 44.2-67.7%) in the early hepatocellular carcinoma group and 70.6% (52.5-81.8%) in the classical hepatocellular carcinoma group as compared with 4.6% (2.8-6.4%) in the control group. The risk of the development of classical hepatocellular carcinoma in the early hepatocellular carcinoma group was significantly higher than that in the control group (hazard ratio, 17.5; 95% confidence interval, 12.1-25.3; P < 0.001) and significantly lower than that in the classical hepatocellular carcinoma group (hazard ratio, 0.60; 0.41-0.89; P = 0.010). However, the cumulative incidence of second primary hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with one early hepatocellular carcinoma did not differ significantly from that in patients with two or more early hepatocellular carcinoma lesions (hazard ratio, 1.50; 0.85-2.65; P = 0.157). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of early hepatocellular carcinoma cannot provide complete cure due to the substantial risk of developing classical hepatocellular carcinoma.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJapanese Journal of Clinical OncologySame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207