Role of 3D quantitative tumor analysis for predicting overall survival after conventional chemoembolization of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to assess 3D vs. 1D and 2D quantitative tumor analysis for prediction of overall survival (OS) in patients with Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) who underwent conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE). 73 ICC patients who underwent cTACE were included in this retrospective analysis between Oct 2001 and Feb 2015. The overall and enhancing tumor diameters and the maximum cross-sectional and enhancing tumor areas were measured on baseline images. 3D quantitative tumor analysis was used to assess total tumor volume (TTV), enhancing tumor volume (ETV), and enhancing tumor burden (ETB) (ratio between ETV and liver volume). Patients were divided into low (LTB) and high tumor burden (HTB) groups. There was a significant separation between survival curves of the LTB and HTB groups using enhancing tumor diameter (p = 0.003), enhancing tumor area (p = 0.03), TTV (p = 0.03), and ETV (p = 0.01). Multivariate analysis showed a hazard ratio of 0.46 (95%CI: 0.27-0.78, p = 0.004) for enhancing tumor diameter, 0.56 (95% CI 0.33-0.96, p = 0.04) for enhancing tumor area, 0.58 (95%CI: 0.34-0.98, p = 0.04) for TTV, and 0.52 (95%CI: 0.30-0.91, p = 0.02) for ETV. TTV and ETV, as well as the largest enhancing tumor diameter and maximum enhancing tumor area, reliably predict the OS of patients with ICC after cTACE and could identify ICC patients who are most likely to benefit from cTACE.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".