Safety and Feasibility of Microwave Ablation for Hepatocellular Carcinomas in the Elderly: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Microwave ablation (MWA) for hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) in the elderly has been the subject of new research in recent years. However, there are currently no strong lines of evidence for the prognosis following MWA treatment for HCC in the elderly. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to assess the safety and feasibility of MWA for HCC in elderly patients. Methods: Up until August 15, 2021, a comprehensive literature search was undertaken in PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Google Scholar databases for all published articles. Observational studies reporting the safety and feasibility of MWA for HCC in elderly patients were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to measure the quality assessment. Results: Our review, composed of 7 observational studies, including a total of 7,683 HCC patients, looked at the safety and feasibility of MWA for HCC in the elderly. Current lines of evidence on the risks and outcomes of MWA of HCC treatments in elderly patients are discussed. Conclusions: According to our findings, elderly patients, even those with a high comorbidity index, benefited from MWA of HCC similar to younger patients. More clinical data are needed to determine selection criteria for elderly HCC patients to increase the possibility of receiving MWA as a potential lifesaving option. As such, further studies evaluating the outcomes of MWA for HCC treatment modalities in elderly patients are warranted. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42021273091.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".