The overall survival rate for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent hepatic resection or radiofrequency ablation procedure for curative intent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is currently one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. According to the data obtained from the last Saudi Cancer Registry 2014, liver cancer represents 4.3% of all cancers diagnosed in Saudi Arabia. This study aimed to measure the overall outcome and “disease-free” survival rates of HCC patients who underwent either a liver resection or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) rehabilitation procedures in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, examining 41 patients with HCC who underwent either liver resection or RFA with curative intent from 2011 to May 2016. The study took place in King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and utilized prospectively collected data. Among the patients who were studied, 7 patients underwent surgical resection and 34 patients underwent RFA. Patients' characteristics, overall survival (OS), and recurrence-free survival were analyzed. Results: Out of the 34 participants who underwent RFA, 17 (50%) experienced recurrence compared to only 3 (42.9%) participants who underwent liver resection. Seven (20.6%) patients who underwent RFA died out of a total of 34. However, only one patient (14.3%) from a total of seven who underwent liver resection died. Conclusion: When comparing the two treatment modalities, it was deemed that there was no significant difference in both recurrence and the OS in both groups.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".