Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms type 1: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To date, the histopathological parameters predicting the risk of lymph node (LN) metastases and local recurrence, associated mortality and appropriateness of endoscopic or surgical resection in patients with gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms type 1 (GNENs1) have not been fully elucidated. AIM: To determine the rate of LN metastases and its impact in survival in patients with GNEN1 in relation to certain clinico-pathological parameters. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched through January 2019. The quality of the included studies and risk of bias were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) in accordance with the Cochrane guidelines. A random effects model and pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95%CI were applied for the quantitative meta-analysis. RESULTS: = 31.9%). The reported complication rates of endoscopic and surgical intervention were 0.6 and 3.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis confirms that tumor size ≥ 10 mm and invasion of the muscularis propria are linked to a higher risk of LN metastases in patients with GNEN1. Overall, the metastatic propensity of GNEN1 is low with favorable 5-year disease-specific survival rates reported; hence, no clear evidence of the prognostic value of LN positivity is available. Additionally, there is a lack of evidence supporting the prediction of local recurrence in GNEN1, even if surgery was more often a definitive treatment.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".