The Toronto Postliver Transplantation Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence Calculator: A Machine Learning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liver transplantation (LT) listing criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain controversial. To optimize the utility of limited donor organs, this study aims to leverage machine learning to develop an accurate posttransplantation HCC recurrence prediction calculator. Patients with HCC listed for LT from 2000 to 2016 were identified, with 739 patients who underwent LT used for modeling. Data included serial imaging, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), locoregional therapies, treatment response, and posttransplantation outcomes. We compared the CoxNet (regularized Cox regression), survival random forest, survival support vector machine, and DeepSurv machine learning algorithms via the mean cross-validated concordance index. We validated the selected CoxNet model by comparing it with other currently available recurrence risk algorithms on a held-out test set (AFP, Model of Recurrence After Liver Transplant [MORAL], and Hazard Associated with liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma [HALT-HCC score]). The developed CoxNet-based recurrence prediction model showed a satisfying overall concordance score of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.84). In comparison, the recalibrated risk algorithms' concordance scores were as follows: AFP score 0.64 (outperformed by the CoxNet model, 1-sided 95% CI, >0.01; P = 0.04) and MORAL score 0.64 (outperformed by the CoxNet model 1-sided 95% CI, >0.02; P = 0.03). The recalibrated HALT-HCC score performed well with a concordance of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.63-0.81) and was not significantly outperformed (1-sided 95% CI, ≥0.05; P = 0.29). Developing a comprehensive posttransplantation HCC recurrence risk calculator using machine learning is feasible and can yield higher accuracy than other available risk scores. Further research is needed to confirm the utility of machine learning in this setting.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".