Associations between gastric cancer risk and virus infection other than Epstein-Barr virus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer is one of the infection associated malignancies. In addition to Helicobacter pylori and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), other oncoviruses might play potential roles in the development of gastric cancer. Associations of oncoviruses other than EBV with gastric cancer risk are aimed to be comprehensively reviewed and assessed in this systematic review and meta-analysis, to identify any potentially causative oncovirus. It might be informative to identify or deny certain oncoviruses which are candidates of risk factor for gastric cancer. To our knowledge, there is no comprehensive review on oncoviruses other than EBV associated with gastric cancer risk. Positive findings might be helpful to suggest further mechanism investigation and high-risk subpopulation recommendation. METHODS: PubMed database will be searched up to Dec 31, 2018. The studies, compared the positivity of any oncovirus other than EBV between cases with histologically proven gastric cancer and healthy or nonmalignant controls, are eligible. The detection of oncovirus either in tissue or blood is acceptable. Selection, quality assessment (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), and data extraction of eligible studies will be performed by 2 independent reviewers. Pooled prevalence of any oncovirus will be combined by meta-analysis for rate. Pooled odds ratio between gastric cancer cases and controls will be estimated by meta-analysis. Heterogeneity and publication bias will be tested. In sensitivity analysis, the leave-one-out method and exclusion of low power studies will be applied where applicable. RESULTS: This review was not submitted for any ethical approval due to the literature-based nature. The results will be published in a journal and presented at conferences for academic purposes.Registration number was CRD42015029703 in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, there is no comprehensive review on oncoviruses other than EBV associated with gastric cancer risk. Positive findings might be helpful to suggest further mechanism investigation and high-risk subpopulation recommendation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".