MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311373148 · doi:10.3390/curroncol29120771

Immunotherapy Use Prior to Liver Transplant in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

2022· review· en· W4311373148 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephanie Woo, Alexandra V. Kimchy, Lynette M. Sequeira, C. Scott Dorris, Aiwu Ruth He, Amol S. Rangnekar

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHepatocellular carcinomaImmunotherapyMEDLINELiver transplantationClinical trialInternal medicineIntensive care medicineOncologyCancerTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, and its incidence has increased rapidly in the United States over the past two decades. Liver transplant is considered curative, but is not always possible, and pre-transplant immunotherapy is of great interest as a modality for downstaging the tumor burden. We present a review of the literature on pre-liver transplant immunotherapy use in patients with HCC. Our literature search queried publications in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and Web of Science, and ultimately identified 24 original research publications to be included for analysis. We found that the role of PD-1 and PD-L1 in risk stratification for rejection is of special interest to researchers, and ongoing randomized clinical trials PLENTY and Dulect 2020-1 will provide insight into the role of PD-1 and PD-L1 in liver transplant management in the future. This literature search and the resulting review represents the most thorough collection, analysis, and presentation of the literature on the subject to date.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.119 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations26
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207