MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6920721227 · doi:10.60692/js8zk-0k983

International Multicenter Validation of GES Score for HCC Risk Stratification in Chronic Hepatitis C Patients

2021· article· en· W6920721227 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohortHepatocellular carcinomaHepatitis C virusChronic hepatitisRisk stratificationFramingham Risk ScoreHepatitis CCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Aims: We have recently demonstrated the ability of a simple predictive model (GES) score to determine the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after using direct-acting antivirals. However, our results were restricted to Egyptian patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 4. Therefore, we studied a large, independent cohort of multiethnic populations through our international collaborative activity. Methods: Depending on their GES scores, patients are stratified into low risk (≤ 6/12.5), intermediate risk (> 6–7.5/12.5), and high risk (> 7.5/12.5) for HCC. A total of 12038 patients with chronic HCV were analyzed in this study, of whom 11202 were recruited from 54 centers in France, Japan, India, the U.S., and Spain, and the remaining 836 were selected from the Gilead-sponsored randomized controlled trial conducted across the U.S., Europe, Canada, and Australia. Descriptive statistics and survival analysis were performed using Kaplan–Meier and log-rank tests. The performance of the GES score was evaluated using Harrell's C-index (HCI). Results : The GES score proved successful at stratifying all patients into 3 risk groups, namely low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk. It also displayed significant predictive value for HCC development in all participants (P < 0 .0001), with HCI ranging from 0.55 to 0.76 among all cohorts after adjusting for HCV genotypes and patient ethnicities. Conclusion: The GES score can be used to stratify HCV patients into 3 categories of risk for HCC, namely low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk, irrespective of their ethnicities or HCV genotypes. This international multicenter validation may allow the use of GES score in individualized HCC risk-based surveillance programs.Funding: None to declare. Declaration of Interest: None to declare. Ethical Approval: The protocol was approved by the Institutional Research Board of each participating center, as per local regulations

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information System→Same topicHepatitis C virus research→French-language works237,207→