Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis: A Review of Pertinent Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of liver cirrhosis is increasing worldwide. Patients with cirrhosis are generally at a higher risk of harbouring hepatic and non-hepatic malignancies, including bladder cancer, likely due to the presence of related risk factors such as smoking. Cirrhosis can complicate both the operative and non-surgical management of bladder cancer. For example, cirrhotic patients undergoing abdominal surgery generally demonstrate worse postoperative outcomes, and chemotherapy in patients with cirrhosis often requires dose reduction due to its direct hepatotoxic effects and reduced hepatic clearance. Multiple other considerations in the peri-operative management for cirrhosis patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer must be taken into account to optimize outcomes in these patients. Unfortunately, the current literature specifically related to the treatment of cirrhotic bladder cancer patients remains sparse. We aim to review the literature on treatment considerations for this patient population with respect to perioperative, surgical, and adjuvant management.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.009 | 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".