Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolisation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma
Post-publication record
OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review was withdrawn on 16 November 2020. The withdrawal notice originally cited a comment received and other methodological problems as the reason for withdrawal. An additional statement by the Editor in Chief of the Cochrane Library has been added (12 October 2021). Statement by the Editor in Chief: In February 2021, an article was posted by Retraction Watch describing the submission of a comment and the subsequent process leading to the withdrawal of this review: retractionwatch.com/2021/02/11/leading-evidence-based-group-blames-pandemic-for-9-month-delay-pulling-flawed-cancer-review. The statement attributed to the Cochrane Hepato‐Biliary Group cited the methodological quality of the published review and the COVID 19 pandemic as reasons for delay in the withdrawal of the review. Having examined the process of the correction and the editorial process, the Editor in Chief is satisfied that the principal reason for the delay in withdrawal of the review relates to a disagreement between the two parties over the methods and data in the review. There were no concerns regarding the integrity of the author team and the authors will be invited to resubmit the corrected review for editorial consideration with a view to reinstatement in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Previous withdrawal statements relating this review: 16 November 2020: Due to a comment received and due to some other identified methodological problems, the present review is withdrawn. 22 June 2021: This review has been withdrawn due to the way in which mortality has been framed, analysed, and reported in the review. The approach to the analysis of the primary outcome of survival has not been consistently applied, leading to potential confusion for the reader.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".