Liver Transplantation for Colorectal and Neuroendocrine Liver Metastases and Hepatoblastoma. Working Group Report From the ILTS Transplant Oncology Consensus Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liver transplantation (LT) for unresectable colorectal liver metastases has long been abandoned because of dismal prognoses. After the dark ages, advances in chemotherapy and diagnostic imaging have enabled strict patient selection, and the pioneering study from the Oslo group has contributed to the substantial progress in this field. For unresectable neuroendocrine liver metastases, LT for patients who met the Milan criteria was able to achieve excellent long-term outcomes. The guidelines further adopted in the United States and Europe were based on these criteria. For hepatoblastoma, patients with unresectable and borderline-resectable disease are considered good candidates for LT; however, the indications are yet to be defined. In the budding era of transplant oncology, it is critically important to recognize the current status and unsolved questions for each disease entity. These guidelines were developed to serve as a beacon of light for optimal patient selection for LT and set the stage for future basic and clinical studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".