Recent Updates on Local Ablative Therapy Combined with Chemotherapy for Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Photodynamic Therapy and Radiofrequency Ablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although chemotherapy constitutes of the first-line standard therapy for unresectable extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, the treatment outcomes are unsatisfactory. In recent years, local ablative therapy, which is delivered to the cholangiocarcinoma lesion via the percutaneous or endoscopic approach, has garnered attention for the treatment of unresectable, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Local ablative therapy, such as photodynamic therapy and radiofrequency ablation, can achieve local tumor control. A synergistic effect may also be expected when local ablative therapy is combined with chemotherapy. However, it is a long way from being entrenched as an established therapeutic technique, and several unresolved problems persist, including the paucity of evidence comparing photodynamic therapy and radiofrequency ablation. Clinical application of photodynamic therapy and radiofrequency ablation requires sound comprehension and assimilation of the available evidence to truly benefit each individual patient. In this study, we reviewed the current status, issues, and future prospects of photodynamic therapy and radiofrequency ablation for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, with a special focus on their combination with chemotherapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".