Gastrectomy Alone or in Combination With Hepatic Resection in the Management of Liver Metastases From Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review Using an Updated and Cumulative Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have demonstrated that hepatectomy in patients with synchronous hepatic gastric metastases may improve survival in certain patients. This study aimed to evaluate survival benefits of gastrectomy plus hepatectomy versus gastrectomy alone in patients with hepatic gastric metastases. METHODS: Studies were identified by a systematic search of Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases. Traditional and cumulative meta-analyses were used to monitor the evidence over time. RESULTS: Eleven studies which included 861 patients compared gastrectomy plus hepatic resection in 349 patients with gastrectomy alone in 512 patients. Overall significantly better survival rates of 1, 2, 3, and 5 years were demonstrated for patients who underwent gastrectomy plus hepatic resection compared to patients who under underwent gastrectomy alone ((hazard ratio (HR) = 0.52 (0.39, 0.69), P < 0.001), (HR = 0.85 (0.74, 0.97), P = 0.01), (HR = 0.80 (0.72, 0.90), P = 0.003), (HR = 0.83 (0.78, 0.90), P < 0.001), respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Carefully selected patients with hepatic gastric metastases may benefit from hepatic resection.
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 | 0.025 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".