Transhiatal versus transthoracic surgical approach for Siewert type Ⅱ adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the increasing prevalence of Siewert type Ⅱ adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ), the optimal surgical treatment is not universally agreed. This meta-analysis compares the safety and efficacy between the transhiahtal (TH) approach and the transthoracic (TT) approach. METHODS: A systematic and electronic search of several databases was performed up to June 2020. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate article quality and funnel plots were created to identify potential publication bias. The random-effects model was used when significant heterogeneity was identified. RESULTS: In total, nine retrospective studies and two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 2331 patients were included. Decreased intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospital stay, lower incidence of pulmonary complications, and longer 3-year overall survival were observed in the TH group. There were no significant differences concerning duration of surgery, R0 resection rate, number of dissected lymph nodes, perioperative mortality and morbidity rate, abdominal complication rate, or anastomotic leak rate. With regard to 5-year overall survival, a potential benefit may be achieved with the TH approach, which requires further confirmation. CONCLUSION: In terms of surgery-related and long-term outcomes, the TH approach may be more appropriate for Siewert type Ⅱ adenocarcinoma of EGJ, especially for esophagus invasion ≤4 cm.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".