Pre-Transplant Factors Influencing Rates of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence in Liver Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to determine factors influencing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence in a cohort of patients who underwent liver transplantation (LT) at a large, tertiary-care medical center. METHODS: A total of 132 patients with the diagnosis of HCC at time of transplant were evaluated for HCC recurrence over a 7-year period. Nine patients were found to have HCC recur post-LT. RESULTS: No significant demographic values were found to indicate recurrence. Pre-LT factors potentially influencing HCC recurrence rates included number of days between HCC diagnosis and date of LT (P = 0.015), caudate lobe involvement (P = 0.019), increased use of radiation therapies pre-LT (P = 0.011), and total number of locoregional therapies (LRT) pre-LT (P < 0.001). Post-transplant outcomes demonstrated a significant difference in deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in the recurrent vs. non-recurrent groups (P = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of HCC recurrence in this study was lower than the national average, yet difficulty still exists in predicting pre-LT factors which may influence HCC recurrence rates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".