MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559460526 · doi:10.1159/000449346

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: The Role of Interventional Oncology

2016· review· en· W2559460526 on OpenAlex

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

VenueLiver Cancer · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Inactivation Methods
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHepatocellular carcinomaMedicineLiver transplantationIncidence (geometry)Surgical resectionInternal medicineOncologyTransplantationGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a major health issue because of its increasing incidence and because of the complexity of its management. In addition to the traditional potentially curative treatments, i.e., liver transplantation and surgical resection, other new and emerging local therapies have been applied with promising results. SUMMARY: Radiotherapy (RT) and interstitial treatments, such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation (MWA), and irreversible electroporation (IRE), have recently opened new and interesting treatment scenarios for HCC and are associated with promising results in selected patients. Herein, we describe the emerging role of interventional oncology for the treatment of HCC and focus on the different Western and Eastern approaches. KEY MESSAGES: Modern RT and modern interstitial therapies, such as RFA, MWA, and IRE, should be considered for inclusion in HCC therapy guidelines.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.322 · 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