Artificial intelligence in liver cancers: Decoding the impact of machine learning models in clinical diagnosis of primary liver cancers and liver cancer metastases
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liver cancers are the fourth leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. In the past decade, breakthroughs in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) have inspired development of algorithms in the cancer setting. A growing body of recent studies have evaluated machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) algorithms for pre-screening, diagnosis and management of liver cancer patients through diagnostic image analysis, biomarker discovery and predicting personalized clinical outcomes. Despite the promise of these early AI tools, there is a significant need to explain the 'black box' of AI and work towards deployment to enable ultimate clinical translatability. Certain emerging fields such as RNA nanomedicine for targeted liver cancer therapy may also benefit from application of AI, specifically in nano-formulation research and development given that they are still largely reliant on lengthy trial-and-error experiments. In this paper, we put forward the current landscape of AI in liver cancers along with the challenges of AI in liver cancer diagnosis and management. Finally, we have discussed the future perspectives of AI application in liver cancer and how a multidisciplinary approach using AI in nanomedicine could accelerate the transition of personalized liver cancer medicine from bench side to the clinic.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it