Comparison of hydrochloric acid infusion radiofrequency ablation with microwave ablation in an ex vivo liver model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To compare sizes and shapes of ablation zones resulting from hydrochloric acid infusion radiofrequency ablation (HRFA) and microwave ablation (MWA), using normal saline infusion radiofrequency ablation (NSRFA) as a control, at a variety of matched power settings and ablation durations, in an ex vivo bovine liver model.Methods A total of 90 ablation procedures were performed, using each of three modalities: NSRFA, HRFA, and MWA. For each modality, five ablation procedures were performed for each combination of power (80 W, 100 W, or 120 W) and duration (5, 10, 20, 30, 45, or 60 min). The size of ablation zones were compared using ANOVA, the Kruskal-Wallis test, or generalized linear regression.Results For ablation durations up to 30 min, mean transverse diameter (TD) after HRFA and MWA did not differ significantly (β = 0.13, p = .20). For ablation durations greater than 30 min, mean TD was significantly larger after HRFA than after MWA (β = 1.657, p < .001). The largest TD (9.46 cm) resulted from HRFA performed with 100 W power for 60 min.Conclusions Compared to MWA, monopolar HRFA with power settings of 80 W–120 W and durations of less than 30 min showed no significant difference. When duration of more than 30 min, HRFA created larger ablation zones than MWA.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".