Current Perspectives in Liver Transplantation for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) encompasses all malignant neoplasms arising from the epithelial cells of the biliary tree. About 40% of CCAs are perihilar, involving the bile ducts distal to the second-order biliary branches and proximal to the cystic duct implant. About two-thirds of pCCAs are considered unresectable at the time of diagnosis or exploration. When resective surgery is deemed unfeasible, liver transplantation (LT) could be an effective alternative. The overall survival rates after LT at 1 and 3 years are 91% and 81%, respectively. The overall five-year survival rate after transplantation is 73% (79% for patients with underlying PSC and 63% for de novo pCCA). Multicenter case series reported a 5-year disease-free survival rate of ~65%. However, different protocols, including neoadjuvant therapy, have been proposed. The scarcity of organ availability represents a crucial limiting factor in recommending LT preferentially in treating pCCA. Living donor transplantations and marginal cadaveric allografts have proven to be exciting options to overcome organ shortage. Management of jaundice and cholangitis is still challenging for these patients and could impact LT listing. Whether to adopt surgical resection or LT as standard-of-care in pCCA is still a matter of debate, and more prospective studies are needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".