MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982610354 · doi:10.7150/jca.30040

The Role of Surgical Resection Following Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Treatment in Patients with Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W2982610354 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yinghao Guo, Jinqiang Liu, Fei Wang, Qiao Wang, Gaozan Zheng, Shushang Liu, Xiao Lian, Hongwei Zhang, Fan Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cancer · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Tumor Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Comprehensive Cancer Network
KeywordsMedicineGiSTCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisInternal medicineSurgical resectionStromal cellOverall survivalOncologyResectionSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The benefit of surgical resection for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) following tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) treatment was still under debate. The present meta-analysis was designed to assess the value of surgical resection for the prognosis of patients with metastatic, recurrence and unresectable GISTs. Methods A systematic search of PubMed Central, PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library database was performed. Relevant studies of the role of surgery in advanced GISTs published before 1 May 2019 were identified. The quality of studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed through software Stata 15.0. Results A total of 6 retrospective studies including 655 patients were analyzed. The pooled result revealed that surgical resection group was associated with better PFS (HR = 2.08; 95% CI: 1.58 to 2.76; P0.001) and better OS (HR = 2.13; 95% CI: 1.59 to 2.85; P0.001) compared with TKIs treatment alone group. Conclusions Surgical resection following TKIs treatment could significantly improve the prognosis of patients with advanced GISTs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.024
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of CancerSame topicGastrointestinal Tumor Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207