MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391309996 · doi:10.1055/s-0043-1777462

Rapid liver regeneration following PVE/HVE improves overall survival compared to PVE alone – A midterm analysis of the multicenter DRAGON 0 cohort

2024· article· en· W4391309996 on OpenAlexaff
Remon Korenblik, Jan Heil, Jens Smits, S. James, Wolf O. Bechstein, Marc H.A. Bemelmans, Christoph A. Binkert, Stefan Breitenstein, Michael D. Williams, Olivier Detry, Maxime Dewulf, Alexandra Dili, Lukasz F. Grochola, Daniel Heise, Jennifer Kalil, Peter Metrakos, Ulf P. Neumann, Sam G. Pappas, Francesca Pennetta, Andreas A. Schnitzbauer, Jordan Tasse, Björn Winkens, Steven W.M. Olde Damink, Christiaan van der Leij, Erik Schadde, Ronald M. van Dam

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Gastroenterologie · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortRegeneration (biology)Survival analysisOncologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Hypertrophy-inducing procedures, such as portal vein embolization (PVE), improve future liver remnant (FLR) volume and function and help overcome limitations to resection. Mainly due to tumor progression while awaiting sufficient liver growth, 30-40% fail to achieve surgery after PVE. In the DRAGON 0 study, simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization (PVE/HVE) has shown to increase FLR-hypertrophy, kinetic growth rate and resectability substantially compared to PVE alone. The purpose of this study is to compare the 3-year overall survival after PVE/HVE versus PVE in patients undergoing liver resection for primary and secondary cancers of the liver. Methods In this multicenter retrospective study, all DRAGON 0 centers provided 3-year follow-up data of all DRAGON 0-included PVE/HVE and PVE cases between 2016 and 2019. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess 3-year overall and recurrence-free survival. Factors affecting survival were analysed using uni- and multivariable cox regression analysis. Results In total, 199 patients from 7 centers were included, of which 39 underwent PVE/HVE and 160 PVE alone. Groups differed in median age (p=0.008). As reported previously, PVE/HVE resulted in a significantly higher resection rate compared to PVE alone (92% vs. 68%; p=0.007). A significant higher 3-year overall survival was observed in the PVE/HVE group (PVE/HVE: not reached after 36 months vs. PVE: 20 months, p=0.004). PVE/HVE was an independent predictor of survival in uni- and multivariable analyses (hazard ratio: 0.46 (confidence interval: 0.27-0.76), p=0.003). Conclusion Overall survival after PVE/HVE is better than after PVE alone in patients with primary and secondary liver tumors Publication History Article published online: 23 January 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZeitschrift für GastroenterologieSame topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207