Efficacy and Safety of Iodine-125 Brachytherapy Combined with Hepatectomy: A Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of hepatectomy combined with iodine-125 (I-125) seed margin implantation in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.Methods: The databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, CBM and wanfang database were retrieved, and the clinical control study with hepatectomy combined with I-125 seed margin implantation for hepatocellular carcinoma were included.Qualified literatures were included according to the standard, and the literature quality was evaluated by the modified Jadad scale and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software.Results: Four studies were included, with a total of 252 patients.The results showed that there was no significant difference in 1-year survival rate between the two groups.The 3-year survival rate and 5-year survival rate of the combined treatment group were better than those of the control group.There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups.Conclusion: Compared with simple hepatectomy, I-125 seed margin implantation assisted hepatectomy has improved clinical efficacy in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma without increasing the incidence of complications.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".