Meta-analysis on the correlation of cholecystectomy or cholecystolithiasis to risk of colorectal cancer in Chinese population
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: It is reported that the incidence of colorectal cancer is higher in patients receiving cholecystectomy (CHE) than in those who did not. However, the correlation of CHE and cholecystolithiasis (CHO) to colorectal cancer is unclear. This study was to investigate the correlation of CHE or CHO to risk of colorectal cancer in Chinese population. METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted according to the guidelines set forth by the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE statement). A manual and computer search of literature was performed. Included literatures were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Original data were extracted, pooled odd ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (Cl) were calculated using revman 5.0. RESULTS: In total 26 studies were included. The pooled OR between CHO or CHE, CHE alone, CHO alone and colorectal cancer were 3.00 (95%IC 2.30-3.91), 2.85 (95%IC 2.13-3.81) and 2.68 (95%IC 1.93-3.72), respectively. Sub-group analysis in sex and position of tumors revealed obvious correlation of CHE or CHO to colorectal cancer except for the men's subgroup. CONCLUSION: CHE or CHO may be associated with colorectal cancer in Chinese population.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it