Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with recognized risk factors remains controversial. The populations for whom surveillance may be appropriate include all patients with established cirrhosis, and hepatitis B (HBV) carriers, even in the absence of cirrhosis. However, even these risk groups can be stratified into patients with higher or lower risk. The most appropriate surveillance test is periodic ultrasound examination, although the optimum screening interval has not been defined. Alphafetoprotein (AFP) is a poor surveillance test, lacking in sensitivity and specificity. There are no randomized controlled trials confirming that surveillance for HCC reduces disease-specific mortality. Modeling studies, however, have suggested that screening is cost-effective and reduces group mortality by a small amount. The criteria by which cancer surveillance programs in general can be judged have been described. Surveillance for HCC meets some of these criteria, but not all. In particular, more effective treatments have to be developed to improve the outcome of surveillance. Although there is no firm evidence to support the practice of surveillance for HCC, this has become common practice, forever preventing the definitive study from being performed. Nonetheless, surveillance is recommended in order to identify patients with small HCCs, who can be entered into trials of therapy of these tumors.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it