Colorectal cancer among persons with HIV: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As persons with HIV live longer, data regarding the epidemiology of colorectal cancer are required to optimize the long-term management of these patients. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to synthesize evidence regarding the incidence of colorectal cancer in persons with HIV. METHODS/DESIGN: Our primary outcome is the standardized incidence ratio of colorectal cancer among persons with HIV relative to rates in persons not living with HIV. Our secondary objectives are to summarize the evidence for differences with respect to stage at diagnosis, site of disease, and mortality due to colorectal cancer. We will search electronic bibliographic databases from their inception date, as well as conference proceedings and reference lists of included articles. Two investigators will independently screen citations and full-text articles, conduct data abstraction, and appraise study quality. We will examine clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity among studies prior to conducting meta-analysis. Random effects meta-analysis methods will be employed to estimate standardized incidence ratios. These data will inform the development of guidelines for colorectal cancer screening in persons with HIV. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014013449.
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 | 0.053 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.006 |
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".