MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107824758 · doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01526-z

Detection of Fusobacterium nucleatum in feces and colorectal mucosa as a risk factor for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3107824758 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Amal Idrissi Janati, Igor Karp, Claudie Laprise, Hisham Sabri, Elham Emami

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOtolaryngology and Infectious Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityWestern UniversityUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsMedicineFusobacterium nucleatumColorectal cancerMeta-analysisFecesRisk factorInternal medicineGastroenterologyFusobacteriumOncologyCancerMicrobiologyBacteriaBacteroides

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Accumulating evidence suggests a potentially important role of colorectal infection with Fusobacterium nucleatum (F. nucleatum) in colorectal carcinogenesis. We conducted a systematic review, including both a qualitative synthesis and a meta-analysis, to synthesize the evidence from the epidemiological literature on the association between F. nucleatum detection in the colon/rectum and CRC. METHODS: A systematic literature search of Ovid MEDLINE(R), Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, EBM Reviews-Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CINAHL Plus with Full Text was conducted using earliest inclusive dates up to 4 October 2020. Eligible studies were original, comparative observational studies that reported results on colorectal F. nucleatum detection and CRC. Two independent reviewers extracted the relevant information. Odds ratio (OR) estimates were pooled across studies using the random effects model. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to critically appraise study quality. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included in the systematic review, of which 12 were included in the meta-analysis. Studies investigated F. nucleatum in feces, colorectal tissue samples, or both. In most studies included in the systematic review, the load of F. nucleatum was higher, on average, in specimens from CRC patients than in those from CRC-free controls. Meta-analysis showed a positive association between F. nucleatum detection in colorectal specimens and CRC (OR = 8.3; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 5.2 to 13.0). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review suggest that F. nucleatum in the colon/rectum is associated with CRC. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on July 10, 2018 (registration number CRD42018095866).

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.040
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations37
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicOtolaryngology and Infectious DiseasesFrench-language works237,207