Prognostic factors of resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data on prognostic factors associated with outcome following resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma vary. We sought to define and characterize current available evidence on prognostic factors associated with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma after resection. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library were systematically searched for relevant studies published before December 2019. Prognostic factors were identified from multivariate regression analyses in studies. Only high-quality studies were included (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale > 6 stars). A total of 45 studies involving 7338 patients were analyzed. The meta-analysis demonstrated that serum bilirubin levels (hazard ratio: 1.76, 95% confidence interval: 1.27-2.44), serum CA19-9 levels (hazard ratio: 1.32, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-1.65), tumor size (hazard ratio: 1.27, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.55), major vascular involvement (hazard ratio: 1.61, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-2.38), distance metastasis (hazard ratio: 17.60, 95% confidence interval: 2.01-154.09), perioperative blood transfusion (hazard ratio: 1.36, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.62), T-stage (hazard ratio: 1.96, 95% confidence interval: 1.47-2.61), lymph node metastasis (hazard ratio: 2.06, 1.83-2.31), resection margin status (hazard ratio: 2.34, 95% confidence interval: 1.89-2.89), not-well histology differentiation (hazard ratio: 2.03, 95% confidence interval: 1.69-2.44), perineural invasion (hazard ratio: 2.37, 95% confidence interval: 1.59-3.55), and lymphovascular invasion (hazard ratio: 1.41, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.73) were prognostic factors for poorer overall survival. Adjuvant chemotherapy (hazard ratio: 0.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-0.55) had a positive effect on prolonged overall survival. In addition, positive resection margin status (hazard ratio: 1.96, 95% confidence interval: 1.47-2.61) and lymph node metastasis (hazard ratio: 2.06, 95% confidence interval: 1.83-2.31) were associated with poorer disease-free survival. The prognostic factors identified in the present meta-analysis can be used to characterize patients in clinical practice and enrich prognostic tools, which could be included in future trial designs and generate hypotheses to be tested in future research to promote personalized treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".