MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391592463 · doi:10.1093/bjsopen/zrad158

Liver resection <i>versus</i> radiofrequency ablation or trans-arterial chemoembolization for early-stage (BCLC A) oligo-nodular hepatocellular carcinoma: meta-analysis

2024· article· en· W4391592463 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueBJS Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiofrequency ablationHepatocellular carcinomaMedicineMeta-analysisLiver cancerInternal medicineCochrane LibraryStage (stratigraphy)GastroenterologySorafenibRandomized controlled trialRelative riskConfidence intervalAblationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The 2022 Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) algorithm does not recommend liver resection (LR) in BCLC A patients with oligo-nodular (two or three nodules ≤3 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This sharply contrasts with the therapeutic hierarchy concept, implying a precise treatment order exists within each BCLC stage. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of LR versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) in BCLC A patients. METHODS: A meta-analysis adhering to PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook was performed. All RCT, cohort and case-control studies that compared LR versus RFA or TACE in oligo-nodular BCLC A HCC published between January 2000 and October 2023 were comprehensively searched on PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and China Biology Medicine databases. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 3 and 5 years. Risk ratio (RR) was computed as a measure of treatment effect (OS and DFS benefit) to calculate common and random effects estimates for meta-analyses with binary outcome data. RESULTS: 2601 patients from 14 included studies were analysed (LR = 1227, RFA = 686, TACE = 688). There was a significant 3- and 5-year OS benefit of LR over TACE (RR = 0.55, 95% c.i. 0.44 to 0.69, P < 0.001 and RR 0.57, 95% c.i. 0.36 to 0.90, P = 0.030, respectively), while there was no significant 3- and 5-year OS benefit of LR over RFA (RR = 0.78, 95% c.i. 0.37 to 1.62, P = 0.452 and RR 0.74, 95% c.i. 0.50 to 1.09, P = 0.103, respectively). However, a significant 3- and 5-year DFS benefit of LR over RFA was found (RR = 0.70, 95% c.i. 0.54 to 0.93, P = 0.020 and RR 0.82, 95% c.i. 0.72 to 0.95, P = 0.015, respectively). A single study comparing LR and TACE regarding DFS showed a significant superiority of LR. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale quality of studies was high in eight (57%) and moderate in six (43%). CONCLUSIONS: In BCLC A oligo-nodular HCC patients, LR should be preferred to RFA or TACE (therapeutic hierarchy concept). Additional comparative cohort studies are urgently needed to increase the certainty of this evidence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.216
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.116 · 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