Macroscopic Characterization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Underexploited Source of Prognostic Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
dictated by its genotype. Therefore, macroscopic characteristics of HCC are unlikely random but rather reflect genomic traits of cancer, presumably acting as a valuable source of information that can be retrieved and exploited to infer prognosis. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the available data on the prognostic value of macroscopic characterization in HCC. A total of 57 studies meeting eligible criteria were identified, including patients undergoing liver resection (LR; 47 studies, 83%) or liver transplant (LT; 9 studies, 16%). The following macroscopic variables were investigated: tumor size (n = 42 studies), number of nodules (n = 28), vascular invasion (n = 24), bile duct invasion (n = 6), growth pattern (n = 15), resection margin (n = 11), tumor location (n = 6), capsule (n = 2) and satellite (n = 1). Although the selected studies provided insightful data with notable prognostic performances, a lack of standardization and substantial gaps were noted in the report and the analysis of gross findings. This topic remains incompletely covered. While the available studies underscored the value of macroscopic variables in HCC prognostication, important lacks were also observed. Macroscopic characterization of HCC is likely an underexploited source of prognostic factors that must be actively explored by future multidisciplinary research.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".