MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529299209 · doi:10.5152/dir.2016.15543

Local tumor progression patterns after radiofrequency ablation of colorectal cancer liver metastases

2016· article· en· W2529299209 on OpenAlex
Marc Napoleone, Ania Z. Kielar, Rebecca Hibbert, Sameh Saif, Benjamin Y. M. Kwan

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAblationRadiofrequency ablationLesionTumor progressionMetastasisColorectal cancerNuclear medicineRadiologyCancerSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate patterns of local tumor progression (LTP) after radiofrequency ablation (RF ablation) of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM) and to highlight the percentage of LTP not attributable to lesion size or RF ablation procedure-related factors (heat sink or insufficient ablation margin). METHODS: CRCLM treated by RF ablation at a single tertiary care center from 2004-2012, with a minimum of six months of postprocedure follow-up, were included in this retrospective study. LTP morphology was classified as focal nodular (<90° of ablation margin), circumferential (>270°), or crescentic (90°-270°). Initial metastasis size, minimum ablation margin size, morphology of LTP, presence of a heat sink, and time to progression were recorded independently by two radiologists. RESULTS: Thirty-two of 127 RF ablation treated metastases (25%) with a mean size of 23 mm (standard deviation 12 mm) exhibited LTP. Fifteen of 32 LTPs (47%) were classified as focal nodular, with seven having no procedure-related factor to explain recurrence. Ten of 32 LTPs (31%) were circumferential, with four having no procedure-related factor to explain recurrence. Seven of 32 LTPs (22%) were crescentic, with two having no procedure-related factor to explain recurrence. Of the 13 lesions without any obvious procedure-related reason for LTP, six (46%) were <3 cm in size. CONCLUSION: Although LTP in RF ablation treated CRCLM can often be explained by procedure-related factors or size of the lesion, in this study up to six (5%) of the CRCLM we treated showed LTP without any reasonable cause.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.254 · 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