Risk Factors for Hospitalization Duration Longer Than 24 Hours Following Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation of Liver Tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Prior studies have described complications of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of liver tumours. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for hospitalization duration longer than 24 hours following RFA of liver tumours. Methods: This retrospective, single-centre study included patients with liver tumours undergoing RFA between October 2017 and July 2020. Medical records were reviewed to collect patient, tumours, and procedure characteristics for each RFA session. The association between potential risk factors and duration of hospitalization (less than or more than 24 hours) was analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regressions. Results: Our study included 291 patients (mean age: 65.2 ± 11.2 [standard deviation]; 201 men) undergoing 324 RFA sessions. Sixty-eight sessions (21.0%) resulted in hospitalization of more than 24 hours. Multivariate analysis identified each additional needle insertion per session (OR 1.4; 95% CI [1.1-1.9]; P = .02), RFA performed in segment V (OR 2.8; 95% CI [1.4-5.7]; P = .004), and use of artificial pneumothorax (OR 14.5; 95% CI [1.4-146.0]; P = .02) as potential risk factors. A history of hepatic encephalopathy (OR 2.6; 95% CI [1.1-6.0]; P = .03) was only significant in univariate analysis. Post-hoc, subgroup analysis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (69.8%) did not identify other risk factors. Conclusion: Risk factors for a hospitalization duration longer than 24 hours include a higher number of needle insertions per session, radiofrequency ablation in segment V, and use of an artificial pneumothorax.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".