Alcoholic Liver Disease-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Characteristics and Comparison to General Slovak Hepatocellular Cancer Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has multiple molecular classes that are associated with distinct etiologies and, besides particular molecular characteristics, that also differ in clinical aspects. We aim to characterize the clinical aspects of alcoholic liver disease-related HCC by a retrospective observational study that included all consequent patients diagnosed with MRI or histologically verified HCC in participating centers from 2010 to 2016. A total of 429 patients were included in the analysis, of which 412 patients (96%) had cirrhosis at the time of diagnosis. The most common etiologies were alcoholic liver disease (ALD) (48.3%), chronic hepatitis C (14.9%), NAFLD (12.6%), and chronic hepatitis B (10%). Patients with ALD-related HCC were more commonly males, more commonly had cirrhosis that was in more advanced stages, and had poorer performance status. Despite these results, no differences were observed in the overall (median 8.1 vs. 8.5 months) and progression-free survival (median 4.9 vs. 5.7 months). ALD-HCC patients within BCLC stage 0–A less frequently received potentially curative treatment as compared to the control HCC patients (62.2% vs. 87.5%, p = 0.017); and in patients with ALD-HCC liver function (MELD score) seemed to have a stronger influence on the prognosis compared to the control group HCC. Systemic inflammatory indexes were strongly associated with survival in the whole cohort. In conclusion, alcoholic liver disease is the most common cause of hepatocellular carcinoma in Slovakia, accounting for almost 50% of cases; and patients with ALD-related HCC more commonly had cirrhosis that was in more advanced stages and had poorer performance status, although no difference in survival between ALD-related and other etiology-related HCC was observed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".