Comparison of International Guidelines on the Accompanying Therapy for Advanced Gastric Cancer: Reasons for the Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if international guidelines differ in their recommendations concerning additive therapy for advanced, but potentially curable, gastric cancer. A systematic search of the English and German literature was conducted in the databases Medline, Cochrane Database, Embase, and PubMed. The search terms used were 'guidelines gastric cancer,' 'guidelines stomach cancer,' and 'Leitlinien Magenkarzinom.' Six different guidelines published after January 1, 2010, in which the tumors were classified according to the seventh edition of the TNM system (2010), were identified. Although the examined guidelines were based on the same study results, their recommendations concerning accompanying therapy for gastric cancer differ considerably. While perioperative chemotherapy is recommended in Germany, Great Britain, and large parts of Europe, postoperative adjuvant radiochemotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy is recommended in the USA and Canada. In Japan, postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended.The results of identical studies were interpreted differently in different countries. Since considerable effort is required for each country to separately test relevant studies for their validity and suitability, an international cooperation could simplify the creation of a common basis for guidelines and contribute to improved comparability of international guidelines.
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 | 0.031 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".