MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390349977 · doi:10.21037/jgo-23-634

Immunotherapy before liver transplant in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a case report

2023· article· en· W4390349977 on OpenAlexaff
Hyejee Ohm, Raida Khwaja, Hatim Karachiwala

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gastrointestinal Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNivolumabIpilimumabHepatocellular carcinomaAdverse effectAtezolizumabInternal medicineBevacizumabLiver transplantationTransplantationImmunotherapyOncologyLiver functionSurgeryCancerChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of global cancer mortality, with liver transplantation as the sole curative treatment. For advanced disease, first-line systemic therapies including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown a survival benefit, but there is scarce data on clinical outcomes when used prior to transplantation. Case Description: We present three case studies of patients who received immunotherapy with atezolizumab/bevacizumab or ipilimumab/nivolumab before liver transplant. We reviewed clinical outcomes including disease response, adverse events related to systemic therapy, as well as graft function post-operatively. One case demonstrated a 45% reduction in total HCC tumour burden whereas another showed stable disease with ICIs. No adverse clinical outcomes such as graft rejection or poor wound healing were noted post-transplant. Indeed, all three patients were successfully transplanted with excellent graft function at the last follow-up. Conclusions: Our observations and data suggest ICIs are a viable option for treatment in the pre-transplant setting. It does not routinely lead to fatal graft rejection and may lengthen eligibility times until a donor organ is available.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gastrointestinal OncologySame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207