MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396667119 · doi:10.3390/cancers16091776

The Current Role of Radiation in the Management of Cholangiocarcinoma—A Narrative Review

2024· review· en· W4396667119 on OpenAlexaff
Saurav Verma, Natalie Grindrod, Daniel Breadner, Michael Lock

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersServier
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyNarrative reviewDiseaseIntensive care medicineIncidence (geometry)PopulationClinical trialOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a rare cancer of bile ducts. It is associated with a poor prognosis. The incidence of CCA is rising worldwide. Anatomical subgroups have been used to classify patients for treatment and prognosis. There is a growing understanding of clinically important distinctions based on underlying genetic differences that lead to different treatment options and outcomes. Its management is further complicated by a heterogeneous population and relative rarity, which limits the conduct of large trials to guide management. Surgery has been the primary method of therapy for localized disease; however, recurrence and death remain high with or without surgery. Therefore, there have been concerted efforts to investigate new treatment options, such as the use of neoadjuvant treatments to optimize surgical outcomes, targeted therapy, leveraging a new understanding of immunobiology and stereotactic radiation. In this narrative review, we address the evidence to improve suboptimal outcomes in unresectable CCA with radiation, as well as the role of radiation in neoadjuvant and postoperative treatment. We also briefly discuss the recent developments in systemic treatment with targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207