MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206031730 · doi:10.21037/hbsn-21-396

Development and internal validation of the Comprehensive ALPPS Preoperative Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score: is the patient suitable for Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy (ALPPS)?

2022· article· en· W4206031730 on OpenAlexaff
Ivan Capobianco, Karl J. Oldhafer, Mohammed-Hossein Fard-Aghaie, R Robles, Roberto Brusadín, Henrik Petrowsky, Michael Linecker, Arianeb Mehrabi, Katrin Hoffmann, Jun Li, Asmus Heumann, Roberto Hernandez‐Alejandro, Mauro Enrique Tun‐Abraham, Elio Jovine, Matteo Serenari, Bergþór Björnsson, Per Sandström, Ruslan Alikhanov, Михаил Ефанов, Paolo Muiesan, Andrea Schlegel, Thomas M. van Gulik, Pim B. Olthof, Gregor A. Stavrou, Lina María Serna-­Higuita, Alfred Königsrainer, Silvio Nadalin

Bibliographic record

VenueHepatoBiliary Surgery and Nutrition · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHepatectomyReceiver operating characteristicSurgeryFramingham Risk ScoreInternal medicineDiseaseResection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Preoperative patient selection in Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) is not always reliable with currently available scores, particularly in patients with primary liver tumor. This study aims to (I) to determine whether comorbidities and patients characteristics are a risk factor in ALPPS and (II) to create a score predicting 90-day mortality preoperatively. Methods: Thirteen high-volume centers participated in this retrospective multicentric study. A risk analysis based on patient characteristics, underlying disease and procedure type was performed to identify risk factors and model the Comprehensive ALPPS Preoperative Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score. A nonparametric receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to estimate the predictive ability of our score against the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), the age-adjusted CCI (aCCI), the ALPPS risk score before Stage 1 (ALPPS-RS1) and Stage 2 (ALPPS-RS2). The model was internally validated applying bootstrapping. Results: A total of 451 patients were included. Mortality was 14.4%. The CAPRA score is calculated based on the following formula: (0.1 × age) - (2 × BSA) + 1 (in the presence of primary liver tumor) + 1 (in the presence of severe cardiovascular disease) + 2 (in the presence of moderate or severe diabetes) + 2 (in the presence of renal disease) + 2 (if classic ALPPS is planned). The predictive ability was 0.837 for the CAPRA score, 0.443 for CCI, 0.519 for aCCI, 0.693 for ALPPS-RS1 and 0.807 for ALPPS-RS2. After 1,000 cycles of bootstrapping the C statistic was 0.793. The accuracy plot revealed a cut-off for optimal prediction of postoperative mortality of 4.70. Conclusions: Comorbidities play an important role in ALPPS and should be carefully considered when planning the procedure. By assessing the patient's preoperative condition in relation to ALPPS, the CAPRA score has a very good ability to predict postoperative mortality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHepatoBiliary Surgery and NutritionSame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207