The survival rate of hepatocellular carcinoma in Asian countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma or Liver cancer (LC) is the sixth most common cancer and the fourth cause of death worldwide in 2018. There has not been a comprehensive study on the survival rate of patients with LC in Asia yet. Therefore, the present study was conducted to evaluate the survival rate of patients with LC in Asian countries. The methodology of the present study is based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) statement. The researchers searched five international databases including Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Knowledge and ProQuest until July 1, 2018. We also searched Google Scholar for detecting grey literature. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form was used to evaluate the quality of selected papers. A total of 1425 titles were retrieved. 63 studies met the inclusion criteria. Based on the random-effect model one-year, three-year and five-year survival rate of LC were 34.8 % (95 % CI; 30.3-39.3), 19 % (95 % CI ; 18.2-21.8) and 18.1 % (95 % CI ;16.1-20.1) respectively. According to the results of our study, the LC survival rate in Asian countries is relatively lower than in Europe and North America.
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 | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".