A Comparison of the Outcomes of Transarterial Chemoembolization and Transarterial Radioembolization in the Management of Neuroendocrine Liver Metastases in Adults: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to review the existing English scientific literature and determine the superior modality between transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and radioembolization (TARE) in the treatment of neuroendocrine liver metastases (NELMs). To that end, we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to search PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. We identified 14 observational studies and no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of TACE or TARE to treat NELM. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the risk of bias in these studies. We concluded that TACE and TARE appeared to have similar outcomes when comparing overall survival, progression-free survival, radiological response, symptomatic response, and the incidence of severe adverse events. Further large-scale RCTs are needed to identify the superior modality conclusively. We also identified several unique prognostic factors for overall survival, such as the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, volumetric multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, serum albumin, alkaline phosphatase, and pancreastatin.
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 | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".