Simple cholecystectomy versus radical resection for stage Ⅱ gallbladder cancer: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: GBC was first reported more than two hundred years ago, but the poor therapeutic effect for GBC patients is still frustrating now, the 5-year survival rate is no more than 5%, and the mean survival time is only about half a year. The objective of this study was to evaluate the importance of radical resection in the treatment of Nevin II and T1b stage gallbladder cancer (stage II GBC) by analyzing the survival rate and tumor recurrence rate after accepting simple cholecystectomy (SC) and radical resection (RR).Methods: PubMed, Embase, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang databases was searched from inception to February 2016. Quality assessment was conducted in each of the available studies by using the validated Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) for cohort and case-control studies. Publication bias was also assessed by using a funnel plot. The odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were employed to estimated effect size. All statistical analyses were carried out using Rev Man 5.2 software.Results: A total of fifteen studies encompassing 424 patients meeting the search criteria were included. Pooled analyses revealed that comparing to simple cholecystectomy, radical resection can significantly increase the 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rate of patients with stage IIGBC (OR = 3.28, 95% CI: 1.83-5.89, P<0.0001; OR = 2.52, 95% CI: 1.49-4.28, P = 0.0006; OR = 3.19, 95% CI: 1.85-5.51, P<0.0001), and patients after radical resection have a significant lower tumor recurrence rate (OR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.11-0.80, P = 0.02).Conclusions: The short- and long-term survival rate of patients with stage II GBC following radical resection is obviously higher than that of patients receiving simple cholecystectomy, and the tumor recurrence rate is obviously lower. Radical resection would be a better choice for stage IIGBC.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".