Prognostic value of albumin-bilirubin grade in patients with cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a type of cancer that develops in the biliary tract. CCA accounts for 10% of primary hepatic cancers and is characterized by its aggressive nature and poor prognosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the prognostic value of the novel hepatic function assessment measure known as albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade in patients with CCA. METHOD: A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus databases until August 11, 2023. Studies examining the prognostic impact of ALBI grade in patients with CCA were included. The prognostic effect was evaluated using hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The final meta-analysis was performed using R version 4.3.1. RESULTS: The final meta-analysis included 13 studies with 3,434 patients. In univariate analysis (HR = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.65-2.19, P < 0.01) and multivariate analysis (HR = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.41-2.52, P < 0.01), higher ALBI grade was associated with lower overall survival (OS) in patients with intrahepatic CCA (ICCA). Higher ALBI grade was also correlated with decreased recurrence-free survival (RFS), with an HR of 1.63 (95% CI: 1.36-1.97, P < 0.01). Subgroup analysis of different ALBI grade comparisons showed consistent findings with our pooled data. CONCLUSION: A high ALBI grade indicates poor OS and RFS in patients with CCA especially intrahepatic type. ALBI should be considered a reliable and clinically useful prognostic indicator. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID: CRD42022379877.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".