Association between family history and prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) increases the risk of developing CRC, and numerous studies have assessed the influence of family history on survival among CRC patients. However, the prognostic effect of a family history of CRC remains uncertain. The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically assess the association between family history and CRC prognosis. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science and Scopus databases up to October 2021, based on the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes and Study designs framework. Two reviewers independently extracted data on baseline characteristics and outcomes from the included studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment of each study. Either a fixed- or a random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled hazard ratio (HR). Results: =21.0%, P=0.263). However, a subgroup analysis supported the prognostic value of disease-free survival in patients with stage III CRC (pooled HR =0.78, 95% CI: 0.67-0.92). Discussion: In conclusion, a positive family history was associated with improved overall survival in CRC patients. It was also a favorable predictor of disease-free survival in patients with stage III CRC. These findings should be interpreted with caution because of limitations related to study quality and differences in the adjusted factors across studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".