Comparison of CT-Guided Microwave Ablation of Liver Malignancies with and Without Intra-Arterial Catheter Placement for Contrast Administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to compare microwave ablation (MWA) with and without prior placement of an intra-arterial catheter for the purpose of application of contrast medium (CM). Methods: 148 patients (45 female, 65.1 ± 14.9 years) with liver tumors who underwent CT-guided MWA were included. Of these, 25 patients had an IA catheter placed in the hepatic artery. Results: 37 patients underwent planning imaging for MWA without CM. A total of 86 patients received a standard dose of 80 mL intravenous (IV) CM for the planning scans. The patients with an IA catheter (n = 25) received an IA application of 10 mL CM. A total of 29 patients received contrast-enhanced scans in the PV phase for control of needle positioning after IV application of a standard dose of 80 mL CM. In patients with an IA catheter, control of the needle position was performed by single-slice scans. IA CM application during the ablation enabled monitoring of the ablation zone. Over the entire intervention, patients with IA catheters received less CM as compared to patients without an IA catheter (39.1 ± 10.4 mL vs. 141 ± 39.69 mL; p < 0.001). Conclusions: IA catheter placement was associated with a significant decrease of the amount of CM during MWA and enabled monitoring of the ablation zone.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".