Redefining Conditional Overall and Disease-Free Survival After Curative Resection for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: a Multi-institutional, International Study of 1221 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess conditional survival (CS) according to recurrence status, as well as conditional disease-free survival (cDFS) among patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). METHODS: CS and cDFS were evaluated among ICC patients who underwent curative-intent resection for ICC by using a multi-institutional database. Five-year CS (CS5) at "x" years was calculated separately for patients who did and did not experience recurrence. The cDFS3 at "x" years was defined as the chance to be disease-free for an additional 3 years after not having experienced a recurrence for "x" years postoperatively. RESULTS: Among 1221 patients, median OS was 36.8 months. While estimated actuarial OS decreased over time, CS5 increased as patients survived over longer periods of time and reached 93.9% at 4 years among 139 patients who did not experience a recurrence. Among the 725 (59.4%) patients who did experience a tumor recurrence, CS5 decreased to 17.7% the first postoperative year; however, CS5 subsequently increased to 79.7% for 81 patients who had survived 4 years after surgery. While actuarial DFS decreased from 54.6% at 1 year to 28.2% at 5 years, estimated cDFS3 following liver resection increased over time. Of note, patients with known risk factors for recurrence had even more marked improvements in cDFS3 over subsequent years versus patients without risk factors for recurrence. CONCLUSION: CS and cDFS changed over time according to the presence of disease-specific risk factors, as well as the presence of recurrence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".