Resection might be a meaningful choice for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein thrombosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: According to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system, the presence of portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) is considered to indicate an advanced stage of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with nearly no cure. Hepatic resection and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) have recently been recommended for treatment of HCC with PVTT. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to compare the overall survival between patients with HCC and PVTT undergoing hepatectomy, TACE or conservative treatment including sorafenib chemotherapy. The PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. All relevant studies were considered. Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for comparison of the cumulative overall survival. Ten retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. RESULTS: Overall survival was not higher in the hepatectomy group than TACE group. But survival rate was higher in hepatectomy group than conservative group. The subgroup analysis demonstrated that hepatectomy was superior in patients without PVTT in the main trunk than in patients with main portal vein invasion. In patients without main PVTT, hepatectomy has showed more benefit than TACE. However, there has been no significant difference between the hepatectomy and TACE groups among patients with main PVTT. CONCLUSION: For patients with resectable HCC and PVTT, hepatectomy might be more effective in patients without PVTT in the main trunk than TACE or conservative treatment.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".