MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3044898108 · doi:10.30476/acrr.2020.46747

Systematic Review of Fecal and Mucosa-Associated Microbiota Compositional Shifts in Colorectal Cancer

2020· article· en· W3044898108 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zahra Karimi, Arash Ghazbani, Sara Kashefian Naeeini, Maryam Marzban

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColorectal cancerFecesMedicineGut floraInternal medicineGastroenterologyCancerBiologyImmunologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Gut microbiota is a major component of the intestinal luminal environment and plays important roles in colorectal cancer. Object: systematically review all the existing literature on the association of mucosa-associated and fecal microbiota with incidence, location, and stage of colorectal adenoma and carcinoma. Methods: The scientific search was done up to July 2018. The search was limited to the English language with predefined and proper keywords. Among 616 articles some of them were eliminated due to some reasons. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined. In the next step two reviewers (M.M and Z.K) independently scanned the titles of all retrieved articles, removed duplicates, and identified potentially relevant abstracts for further assessment. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the Quality was used for quality control. Result: Finally, 54 articles were entered into the study. Fusobacteria 39 (72%), Firmicutes 22(40%), Bacteroidetes 20 (37%), Proteobacteria 15(27%), Actinobacteria 10(18%) was the most prevalent phylum which was found in colorectal cancer patients. Among these taxa some of them were increased in colorectal cancer patients compared to the control; on the other hand, some taxon was declined in colorectal cancer patients. Besides this, in some taxon there were controversies among articles. Conclusion: Early detection of CRC is essential because patients whose cancer are detected at an early stage have more chance of survival. Until now there are several studies have demonstrated the potential rule of gut microbiota to be used for detection of CRC, but there is not any predefining protocol for screening. Although we found lots of articles which were published in this area, for defining a precise microbiota profile we need large multicenter case-control studies, where can show the effect of most important confounding factors like nutrition, ethnicity, physical activity, smoking consumption, and genetic background.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.007
Bibliometrics0.0170.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.396 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicGut microbiota and health→French-language works237,207→