ALBI score and outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: <i>post hoc</i> analysis of the randomized controlled trial KEYNOTE-240
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: This post hoc analysis evaluated albumin/bilirubin (ALBI) score, an objective measure of liver function, in patients receiving pembrolizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) compared with placebo plus BSC in the KEYNOTE-240 study. Methods: Patients with confirmed hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and progression after/intolerance to sorafenib, Child–Pugh class A liver function, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1 were randomly assigned 2:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo intravenously every 3 weeks plus BSC for ⩽35 cycles or until confirmed progression/unacceptable toxicity. Outcomes were assessed by ALBI grade. Results: Of 413 patients, at baseline 116 had an ALBI grade 1 score (pembrolizumab, n = 74; placebo, n = 42) and 279 had an ALBI grade 2 score ( n = 193; n = 86). Change from baseline in ALBI score to the end of treatment was similar in both arms [difference in least squares mean, −0.039; 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.169 to 0.091]. Time to ALBI grade increase was similar in both arms [median for pembrolizumab versus placebo: 7.8 versus 6.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.863 (95% CI: 0.625–1.192)]. Regardless of baseline ALBI grade, a trend toward improved overall survival was observed with pembrolizumab [grade 1: HR = 0.725 (95% CI: 0.454–1.158); grade 2: HR = 0.827 (95% CI: 0.612–1.119)]. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab did not adversely impact liver function compared with placebo in patients with HCC, as measured by changes in ALBI scores. A trend toward improved overall survival was observed with pembrolizumab in both ALBI grade groups. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02702401.
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".