Efficacy of radiofrequency ablation versus laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in China: a comprehensive meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been the second leading cause of cancer-related death in China. Radiofrequency ablation is a relatively novel treatment that may improve the treatment of HCC. AIM: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in the treatment of HCC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched for relevant published studies in English (PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE) and in Chinese (CBM, CNKI and Wanfang) from their inception until September 23, 2019. The quality of included studies was evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: A total of 19 retrospective studies including 2038 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrated that LLR was superior to RFA in terms of 3-year overall survival rate (OR = 0.62), 1 to 3-year disease-free survival rates (OR = 0.57; OR = 0.41, respectively) and local recurrence rates (OR = 2.71). CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis demonstrates that laparoscopic liver resection should be preferred in tumors of size 3-5 cm, while for < 3 cm the long term results are equal.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".