Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumours of the liver – a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatic inflammatory myofibroblastic tumours (HIMTs) are rare and poorly described in the literature. Most publications are single patient case reports and lack detailed reporting on characteristics, management, and outcomes. This systematic review aimed to assess the demography, clinical presentation, typical imaging features, histopathology, treatment, and outcomes of patients presenting with HIMTs. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Scopus), JSTOR, Cochrane CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), and the databases included in the Web of Science for studies published between 1940 and 2023 on HIMTs, including its reported synonyms. Case series or cohort studies that reported on the management and outcomes of at least four patients with histologically confirmed HIMTs were included in the analysis. RESULTS: After screening 4553 publications, 22 articles including a total of 440 patients with confirmed HIMTs were eligible for inclusion. The average age was 53.4 years (range 42.0-65.0) with a male to female ratio of 1.7:1. Abdominal pain, discomfort, fever, and loss of weight were the most common presenting symptoms. Surgical resection is the standard of care for HIMTs and is associated with low mortality of 3.4% and low disease recurrence. CONCLUSION: HIMT is a disease more often affecting middle-aged males. The lesions are typically solitary with low recurrence after treatment. The relative roles of surgical versus medical treatment remain unclear. Differences in clinical presentation, histopathology, and treatment of HIMTs compared to inflammatory myofibroblastic tumour (IMT) at extrahepatic sites could challenge the current view of IMT as a single pathological entity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".