Effects of oxymatrine on the proliferation of human liver cancer Bel-7404 cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study will examine the effects of oxymatrine on the proliferation of human liver cancer Bel-7404 cells (HLCBC). METHODS: This study will search electronic bibliographic databases available in PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, China Biology Medicine, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. We attempt to search case-controlled studies (CCSs) or randomized controlled studies (RCSs) pertaining to HLCBC from their inception to the February 29, 2020 without limitations of language and publication time. We will include any CCSs or RCSs on exploring oxymatrine on the proliferation of HLCBC. We will assess the methodological quality of CCSs by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and RCSs by Cochrane risk of bias tool. Review Manager 5.3 software will be utilized for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The current study will summarize most recent eligible studies to investigate the effects of oxymatrine on the proliferation of HLCBC. CONCLUSION: Its results may provide reliable scientific evidence on effects of oxymatrine on the proliferation of HLCBC. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: INPLASY202040026.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".