Is a fusobacterium nucleatum infection in the colon a risk factor for colorectal cancer?: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite a considerable amount of epidemiological research for identification of risk factors involved in the development of colorectal cancer, the current understanding of the etiology of this disease remains rather poor. Accumulating evidence suggests a potentially important role of infection with Fusobacterium nucleatum in the colon in colorectal carcinogenesis. The objective of this systematic review is to synthesize the epidemiological evidence on the association between infection with Fusobacterium nucleatum in the colon and colorectal cancer. METHODS: This systematic review will include observational studies (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional) in humans in which the role of Fusobacterium nucleatum in the etiology of colorectal cancer was investigated. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews will be searched using a comprehensive search strategy and manual screening of references. Two reviewers will independently identify eligible studies and extract the data from the included studies. The quality of studies will be assessed by using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Random-effects models will be used to estimate pooled measures of association (where feasible). Meta-regression and subgroup analyses will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity. The Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement will be followed for reporting. DISCUSSION: Deepening knowledge regarding the etiology of colorectal cancer and the potential implications of Fusobacterium nucleatum in this disease is instrumental for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of this often-fatal disease. This review will produce summarized current evidence on this topic. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 10 July 2018 (registration number CRD42018095866).
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 | 0.056 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.005 |
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".