The role of percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP) in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review article evaluates the current literature on the role of percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP) as a treatment option in cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). CCA is a rare cancer that is mostly diagnosed at a late stage. Patients with advanced, unresectable disease have limited treatment options. PHP is a locoregional therapy that delivers high doses of chemotherapy directly to the liver while minimizing systemic exposure and toxicity. This review allocates PHP in the therapeutic spectrum of CCA and summarizes the available literature with a focus on the clinical efficacy and safety profile. Results from studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of PHP are promising, with several observational studies demonstrating improvements in progression-free survival and overall survival rates. However, PHP is not without side effects; the most commonly reported adverse events include transient hematotoxicity and hepatotoxicity. PHP has the potential to be a valuable treatment option for patients with unresectable CCA. Nonetheless, further trials are needed to optimize patient selection, treatment regimens, and long-term outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".