MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3007443675 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz047.092

A93 HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA SCREENING IN PATIENTS WITH CIRRHOSIS FOLLOWED BY A GASTROENTEROLOGIST- A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY OF HEALTHCARE QUALITY

2020· article· en· W3007443675 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lori Bourassa, V Décarie, Annie Beaudoin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCirrhosisHepatocellular carcinomaInternal medicineGuidelineRetrospective cohort studyPopulationGastroenterologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) guidelines recommend screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in adults with cirrhosis every six months by abdominal ultrasound. This recommendation stands for patients with Child-Pugh A / B cirrhosis or Child-Pugh C who are on the transplant waiting list. The rationale behind this guideline is that surveillance for HCC has been shown to improve overall survival. However, in previous studies, rate of adherence to screening was suboptimal. Aims The goal of this study was to define the screening rate in our medical center while collecting demographic and descriptive data (Table 1). Methods We performed a monocentric retrospective study of healthcare quality. Adult patients who had a diagnosis of HCC between July 2010 and February 2018 and who were previously followed in gastroenterology for cirrhosis were included. The delay between the last abdominal imaging available and the first imaging that raised suspicion for or made the HCC diagnosis possible was calculated for each patient. Screening was considered appropriate if it was less than 8 months. Results 102 of the 170 patients had to be excluded from the study because their cirrhosis wasn’t clearly documented before the HCC diagnosis (Figure 1). Amongst included patients, 52% (95% confidence interval 0,39-1,00) had received an appropriate screening for HCC.The average size of HCC at diagnosis was 37 mm and 53% had multicentric distribution. 56% of patients received treatment, with chemoembolization being the most frequently used in our population. 49% and 80% of patients had passed away at 1 and 3 years post-diagnosis, respectively. 52% of patients had normal alpha-feto-protein (AFP) initially. Conclusions Although limited in statistical power by the size of its sample, our study still sheds an interesting light on the reality of HCC screening in a Canadian hospital. The rate of appropriate screening, although suboptimal, is comparable to those reported in the literature elsewhere in the world. The dark prognosis associated with this disease is also illustrated. The proportion of patients who were excluded from the study due to occult cirrhosis highlights the importance of establishing this diagnosis so that screening recommendations can be put into practice. Further studies of larger scale would be needed to assess the causes of screening issues. Funding Agencies None

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→