MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135467979 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06454

Percutaneous microwave ablation applications for liver tumors: recommendations for COVID-19 patients

2021· review· en· W3135467979 on OpenAlexafffund
Pooya Afaghi, M Lapolla, Khashayar Ghandi

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsMicrowave ablationAblationMedicinePercutaneousRadiofrequency ablationAblation zoneRadiologyAntenna (radio)MicrowaveRadiation therapySurgeryPhysicsComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microwave ablation (MWA) is an alternative locoregional therapy to surgical resection of solid tumors in the treatment of malignancies, and is widely used for hepatic tumors. It has a slightly higher overall survival (OS) rate compared to external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), and proton beam therapy (PBT), and better long-term recurrence-free OS rate compared to radiofrequency ablation (RFA). In this paper, current commercial devices, most recent noncommercial designs, and the principles behind them alongside the recently reported developments and issues of MWA are reviewed. The paper also provides microscopic insights on effects of microwave irradiation in the body. Our review shows that MWA is a safe and effective, minimally invasive method with high ablation completion rates. However, for large tumors, the completion rates slightly decrease, and recurrences increase. Thus, for large tumors we suggest using a cooled shaft antenna or multiple antenna placements. Comparisons of the two common ablation frequencies 915 MHz and 2.45 GHz have shown inconsistent results due to non-identical conditions. This review suggests that 915 MHz devices are more effective for ablating large tumors and the theory behind MWA effects corroborates this proposition. However, for small tumors or tumors adjacent to vital organs, 2.45 GHz is suggested due to its more localized ablation zone. Among the antenna designs, the double-slot antenna with a metallic choke seems to be more effective by localizing the radiation around the tip of the antenna, while also preventing backward radiation towards the skin. The review also pertains to the use of MWA in COVID-19 patients and risk factors associated with the disease. MWA should be considered for COVID-19 patients with hepatic tumors as a fast treatment with a short recovery time. As liver injury is also a risk due to COVID-19, it is recommended to apply liver function tests to monitor abnormal levels in alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), total bilirubin, and other liver function indicators.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicUltrasound and Hyperthermia ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207