MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367314878 · doi:10.14740/jocmr4902

Prognostic Scores and Survival Rates by Etiology of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Review

2023· review· en· W4367314878 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHepatocellular carcinomaEtiologyOncologyInternal medicineCarcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common cancer and ranks sixth among all malignancies worldwide. Risk factors for HCC can be classified as infectious or behavioral. Viral hepatitis and alcohol abuse are currently the most common risk factors for HCC; however, nonalcoholic liver disease is expected to become the most common cause of HCC in upcoming years. HCC survival rates vary according to the causative risk factors. As in any malignancy, staging is crucial in making therapeutic decisions. The selection of a specific score should be individualized according to patient characteristics. In this review, we summarize the current data on epidemiology, risk factors, prognostic scores, and survival in HCC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.509
GPT teacher head0.602
Teacher spread0.093 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it