[Meta-analysis on relationship between Helicobacter pylori infection and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the etiological association between esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma and Helicobacter pylori (Hp) infection and the pathogenicity of Cag pathogenic island in Hp infection cases. METHODS: Literatures about Hp infection and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma published from January 1980 to April 2015 were retrieved from CNKI, Wanfang data, VIP, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBase databases. The literatures which met the inclusion criteria were collected and evaluated by using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, then the heterogeneity was analyzed with Review Manager 5.3, and the pooled OR value and 95% confidence interval were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 5547 study subjects were recruited in 13 studies, including 1446 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma cases and 4101 controls. The combined OR for Hp infection was 0.95 (95%CI: 0.66-1.36), P=0.71; The OR in high risk areas was 1.66 (95%CI: 1.33-2.08, P<0.001), higher than that in low-risk areas (0.68, 95%CI: 0.49-0.94, P=0.020). In addition, six studies found that the combined detection rates of Cag pathogenic island in esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma cases and controls were 80.50% and 79.80%, respectively. There was no significant difference between two group, the combined OR was 1.24 (95%CI: 0.96-1.60). CONCLUSION: The association between Hp infection and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma was not significant, however, the significant difference was observed between high risk area and low risk area; the detection rate of Gag pathogenic island in Hp infection cases was high, but the pathogenicity for esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma needs further study.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".