Causes of death after liver transplantationamong patients with solitary hepatocellularcarcinoma in the United State, from 2004 to 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ENWEndNote BIBJabRef, Mendeley RISPapers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero AMA Elgenidy A, Afifi A. Causes of death after liver transplantation among patients with solitary hepatocellular carcinoma in the United State, from 2004 to 2015. Gastroenterology Review/Przegląd Gastroenterologiczny. 2023;18(1):132-134. doi:10.5114/pg.2023.126045. APA Elgenidy, A., & Afifi, A. (2023). Causes of death after liver transplantation among patients with solitary hepatocellular carcinoma in the United State, from 2004 to 2015. Gastroenterology Review/Przegląd Gastroenterologiczny, 18(1), 132-134. https://doi.org/10.5114/pg.2023.126045 Chicago Elgenidy, Anas, and Ahmed M. Afifi. 2023. "Causes of death after liver transplantation among patients with solitary hepatocellular carcinoma in the United State, from 2004 to 2015". Gastroenterology Review/Przegląd Gastroenterologiczny 18 (1): 132-134. doi:10.5114/pg.2023.126045. Harvard Elgenidy, A., and Afifi, A. (2023). Causes of death after liver transplantation among patients with solitary hepatocellular carcinoma in the United State, from 2004 to 2015. Gastroenterology Review/Przegląd Gastroenterologiczny, 18(1), pp.132-134. https://doi.org/10.5114/pg.2023.126045 MLA Elgenidy, Anas et al. "Causes of death after liver transplantation among patients with solitary hepatocellular carcinoma in the United State, from 2004 to 2015." Gastroenterology Review/Przegląd Gastroenterologiczny, vol. 18, no. 1, 2023, pp. 132-134. doi:10.5114/pg.2023.126045. Vancouver Elgenidy A, Afifi A. Causes of death after liver transplantation among patients with solitary hepatocellular carcinoma in the United State, from 2004 to 2015. Gastroenterology Review/Przegląd Gastroenterologiczny. 2023;18(1):132-134. doi:10.5114/pg.2023.126045.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".