Artificial intelligence in transplantation (machine-learning classifiers and transplant oncology)
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
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To highlight recent efforts in the development and implementation of machine learning in transplant oncology - a field that uses liver transplantation for the treatment of hepatobiliary malignancies - and particularly in hepatocellular carcinoma, the most commonly treated diagnosis in transplant oncology. RECENT FINDINGS: The development of machine learning has occurred within three domains related to hepatocellular carcinoma: identification of key clinicopathological variables, genomics, and image processing. SUMMARY: Machine-learning classifiers can be effectively applied for more accurate clinical prediction and handling of data, such as genetics and imaging in transplant oncology. This has allowed for the identification of factors that most significantly influence recurrence and survival in disease, such as hepatocellular carcinoma, and thus help in prognosticating patients who may benefit from a liver transplant. Although progress has been made in using these methods to analyse clinicopathological information, genomic profiles, and image processed data (both histopathological and radiomic), future progress relies on integrating data across these domains.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 it