Computational intelligence identifies alkaline phosphatase (ALP), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), and hemoglobin levels as most predictive survival factors for hepatocellular carcinoma
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
Liver cancer kills approximately 800 thousand people annually worldwide, and its most common subtype is hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which usually affects people with cirrhosis. Predicting survival of patients with HCC remains an important challenge, especially because technologies needed for this scope are not available in all hospitals. In this context, machine learning applied to medical records can be a fast, low-cost tool to predict survival and detect the most predictive features from health records. In this study, we analyzed medical data of 165 patients with HCC: we employed computational intelligence to predict their survival, and to detect the most relevant clinical factors able to discriminate survived from deceased cases. Afterwards, we compared our data mining results with those obtained through statistical tests and scientific literature findings. Our analysis revealed that blood levels of alkaline-phosphatase (ALP), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), and hemoglobin are the most effective prognostic factors in this dataset. We found literature supporting association of these three factors with hepatoma, even though only AFP has been used in a prognostic index. Our results suggest that ALP and hemoglobin can be candidates for future HCC prognostic indexes, and that physicians could focus on ALP, AFP, and hemoglobin when studying HCC records.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it