MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153203995 · doi:10.21037/tcr-20-3458

Effectiveness and safety of focused ultrasound ablation surgery compared with radiofrequency ablation in primary hepatocellular carcinoma treatment: a meta-analysis

2021· article· en· W3153203995 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jianying Zhang, Long Chen, Rong Ma, Chunmu Miao, Wang Yun-bing

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Cancer Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryRadiofrequency ablationMeta-analysisHepatocellular carcinomaRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalRelative riskCohortCohort studyAblationSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness and safety of focused ultrasound ablation surgery (FUAS) for primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment has not been fully evaluated. This study analyzed the effectiveness and safety of FUAS compared to radiofrequency ablation (RFA). METHODS: Studies published before November 1, 2020, in the following databases were analyzed: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang Data, CqVip, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Biomedical (CBM) database. All publications were reviewed independently by two authors. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies examining the effectiveness and safety of FUAS and RFA were considered. RCTs and cohort studies' methodological quality were evaluated using the Cochrane collaboration tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 6,597 records were identified, from which 3 cohort studies were selected for quantitative synthesis. All studies had relatively high methodological quality. The meta-analysis indicated that FUAS and RFA had comparable 3-month overall survival (OS) rates [risk ratio (RR): 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86 to 1.14], 6-month OS rates (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.29), and 1-year OS rates (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.11). Also, individual studies reported that the tumor response (reflected by tumor response and tumor ablation rate) and posttreatment complications were comparable between patients treated with FUAS and patients treated with RFA. Due to the limited number of studies reporting tumor response and posttreatment complications, further meta-analyses could not be conducted. DISCUSSION: FUAS and RFA were comparable in terms of effectiveness and safety in the treatment of primary HCC. However, current evidence is limited, and more prospective RCTs are warranted to confirm these findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.068
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslational Cancer ResearchSame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207