Systematic review and meta‐analysis of the association between diverticulosis of the appendix and neoplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diverticula of the appendix (DA) are infrequent and their clinical implications are often overlooked. Several studies have found a significantly increased prevalence of neoplasms in appendiceal specimens with diverticula. Despite the potential clinical implications, there is a paucity of literature. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the prevalence of DA and its association with neoplasia. METHODS: A systematic search of literature (Cochrane, EMBASE, PubMed and Medline) reporting the prevalence of DA and association with neoplasia was performed in November 2019. Relevant articles were assessed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias assessment was carried out using modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analysis with risk ratio and random-effects model was performed using RevMan. RESULTS: The initial search identified 1122 potential articles of which 11 were appropriate for quantitative analysis. The prevalence rate of DA was 1.74%. The mean age of patients with DA and those without DA was 41.2 and 33.9 years, respectively. The ratio of male to female was 1.8:1. The prevalence of neoplasia in specimens without DA versus those with DA was 1.28% and 26.94%, respectively. Only four studies addressed the prevalence of locoregional neoplasia in the setting of DA compared to control. Meta-analysis with random-effects model demonstrated that pooled risk ratio was 25.46 (95% confidence interval 12.77-50.75, P < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: The strong association with neoplasia in this meta-analysis reinforces the clinical significance of DA. Surgeons, pathologists and radiologists should be mindful of this uncommon pathology and consider individualized patient management, until further evidence can direct clinical guidelines for the management of patients with DA.
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 | 0.016 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".