MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010352650 · doi:10.1097/meg.0000000000001685

External validation of the Toronto hepatocellular carcinoma risk index in Turkish cirrhotic patients

2020· article· en· W3010352650 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Coşkun Özer Demirtaş, Feyza Gündüz, Haluk Tarık Kani, Çağlayan Keklikkıran, Yeşim Özen Alahdab, Yusuf Yılmaz, Deniz Duman, Özlen Atuğ, Adnan Giral, Rahmi Aslan, Nur Sena Çağatay, Bige Özkan, Osman Özdoğan

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHepatocellular carcinomaMedicineInternal medicineCarcinomaGastroenterologyReceiver operating characteristicArea under the curveRisk factorOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Toronto hepatocellular carcinoma risk index is developed to stratify cirrhotic patients according to 10-year hepatocellular carcinoma risk. We aimed to validate the performance of Toronto hepatocellular carcinoma risk index in a large Turkish cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the database of 1287 cirrhotic patients followed-up in a 10-year period (February 2008 to January 2018). All patients were stratified into three groups based on the Toronto hepatocellular carcinoma risk index score as follows: low-risk, < 120; intermediate risk, 120 to 240; and high risk, > 240. Area under the curve and optimal cutoff value of Toronto hepatocellular carcinoma risk index were obtained from receiver operator curve. To reveal the parameters related with hepatocellular carcinoma development, logistic regression analysis was conducted. The cumulative incidences of hepatocellular carcinoma were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the curves were compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Out of 403 enrolled patients, 57 developed hepatocellular carcinoma. The median Toronto hepatocellular carcinoma risk index value was higher in hepatocellular carcinoma (+) group comparing to hepatocellular carcinoma (-) group [267 (70-366) vs. 224 (36-366), P < 0.001]. Out of 57 detected hepatocellular carcinomas, 45 (78.9%) were high risk, 11 (19.3%) were intermediate risk, and only one (1.8%) was low risk at the entry. The area under the curve of the Toronto hepatocellular carcinoma risk index to predict hepatocellular carcinoma was 0.750 (95% confidence interval, 0.683-0.817, P < 0.001). The optimal cutoff value of Toronto hepatocellular carcinoma risk index was 239.5, giving a sensitivity of 78.9% and specificity of 62.7%. As a result, Toronto hepatocellular carcinoma risk index remained to be the only significant parameter that has an affect on hepatocellular carcinoma development [adjusted-odds ratio: 1.016 (95% confidence interval, 1.007-1.024), P<0.001]. CONCLUSION: The present study validated the performance of Toronto hepatocellular carcinoma risk index in Turkish cirrhotic patients to predict hepatocellular carcinoma risk, which can be considered as a tool for personalized surveillance.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Gastroenterology & HepatologySame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207