MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071037838 · doi:10.7314/apjcp.2013.14.11.7011

Association between Praziquantel and Cholangiocarcinoma in Patients Infected with Opisthorchis viverrini: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2013· review· en· W2071037838 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Supot Kamsa‐ard, Malinee Laopaiboon, Vor Luvira, Vajarabhongsa Bhudhisawasdi

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicParasites and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpisthorchis viverriniMedicineMeta-analysisPraziquantelOdds ratioInternal medicineConfidence intervalLiver flukeRelative riskImmunologySchistosomiasisHelminths

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The liver fluke, Opisthorchis viverrini, and the associated incidence of subsequent cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) are still a public health problem in Thailand, and praziquantel (PZQ) remains the antihelminthic drug of choice for treatment. Evidence in hamsters shows that repeated infection and PZQ treatments could increase the risk of CCA. However, the existing evidence in humans is inconclusive regarding increased risk of CCA with frequency of PZQ intake. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationship between number of repeated PZQ treatments and CCA in patients with O viverrini infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The reviewed studies were searched in EMBASE, MEDLINE, ProQuest, PubMed and SCOPUS from inception to October, 2012 using prespecified keywords. The risk of bias (ROB) of included studies was independently assessed by two reviewers using a quality scale from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Risk effect of PZQ was estimated as a pooled odds ratio (OR) with its 95% confidence interval (95%CI) in the random-effects model using DerSimonian and Laird's estimator. RESULTS: Three studies involving 637 patients were included. Based on the random effects model performed in two included studies of 237 patients, the association between PZQ treatments and CCA was not statistical significant with a pooled OR of 1.8 (95%CI; 0.81 to 4.16). CONCLUSIONS: The present systematic review and meta-analysis provides inconclusive evidence of risk effect of PZQ on increasing the risk of CCA and significant methodological limitations. Further research is urgently needed to address the shortcomings found in this review, especially the requirement for histological confirmation.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.034
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Pacific Journal of Cancer PreventionSame topicParasites and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207