Prognosis of Asian patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with bile duct tumor thrombus after hepatic resection or liver transplantation: a Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Hepatocellular carcinoma with bile duct tumor thrombus (BDTT) is rare, and surgical treatment is currently considered as the most effective treatment. Whether resectional surgery should be carried out on these patients remains controversial. Therefore, this Meta-analysis aimed to find out the long-term survival after resectional surgical treatment. Methods We conducted a literature search on PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from inception to September 2016. 11 studies were included which involved 5295 patients. Each study was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The pooled effect was calculated and the associations between BDTT and overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) were reevaluated using Meta-analysis with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results The HR for OS and DFS was 2.34 and 1.81, the 95% CI were 1.26~4.36 and 1.17~2.78, respectively. Conclusion HCC patients with BDTT had a bad prognosis after hepatic resection or liver transplantation. Key words: Hepatocellular carcinoma; Bile duct tumor thrombus; Prognosis; Hepatectomy; Liver transplantation; Asian
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".