MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297545793 · doi:10.3390/curroncol29100553

Hepatic Abscess following Yttrium-90 Radioembolization in Patients with Surgical Bilioenteric Anastomosis or Compromised Sphincter of Oddi: A Tertiary Cancer Center Experience

2022· article· en· W4297545793 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kevin Agahi, Armeen Mahvash, Mohamed E. Abdelsalam

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLiver abscessAbscessMalignancySurgeryPercutaneousHepatic abscessPrimary sclerosing cholangitisRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: We describe our experience with the development of hepatobiliary infection in patients with prior surgical, percutaneous, or endoscopic biliary interventions who are receiving transarterial radioembolization (TARE) with yttrium-90 (90Y) for primary or metastatic hepatobiliary lesions. Methods: Records of 15 patients with a history of prior biliary intervention and liver malignancy subsequently treated with TARE at the participating medical center from November 2009 to September 2015 were reviewed. The primary endpoint was the development of a hepatic abscess or cholangitis in a patient after radioembolization. Results: A total of 15 patients comprising 9 men and 6 women, with a median age of 49 years (range 30–73), underwent 17 TARE with 90Y procedures. Of the 15 patients, 2 (13.3%) of them developed a hepatobiliary infection. A single patient (6.6%) developed a hepatobiliary abscess. Conclusion: Our study shows a low incidence rate of hepatic abscess following TARE in patients with prior biliary intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersFrench-language works237,207