MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283390335 · doi:10.12998/wjcc.v10.i19.6483

Diagnostic accuracy of ≥ 16-slice spiral computed tomography for local staging of colon cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4283390335 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Clinical Cases · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisColorectal cancerDiagnostic odds ratioCochrane LibrarySpiral computed tomographyOdds ratioReceiver operating characteristicCancerRadiologyInternal medicineOncologyComputed tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide with high mortality and is classified as a single entity, although colon cancer and rectal cancer have largely different diagnoses, treatments, surgical methods, and recurrence rates. ≥ 16-slice spiral computed tomography (SCT) is mostly applied to detect the local stage of colon cancer; however, its diagnostic accuracy and whether it is conducive to distinguishing between high-risk and low-risk colon cancer are unclear. AIM: To systematically review the diagnostic accuracy of ≥ 16-slice SCT for local staging of colon cancer. METHODS: Based on the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases, computers were used to search the literature from the establishment of the database to April 2021, and the results of the diagnostic tests on ≥ 16-slice SCT for local staging of colon cancer were collected according to the inclusion criteria. The data were then extracted and assessed on the basis of the Quality Assessment Checklist of the Institute of Economics of Canada, Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/). Afterward, a meta-analysis was performed using the statistical software Meta-disc 14.0 and Stata 15.0. RESULTS: Eleven studies that provided data on 1613 subjects with computed tomography diagnostic tests were included in this study. Meta-analysis revealed that the pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, pooled negative likelihood ratio (LR), pooled diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the fitted receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of ≥ 16-slice SCT for colon cancer T staging were 0.67 (95%CI: 0.65-0.70), 0.81 (95%CI: 0.80-0.83), 4.13 (95%CI: 2.66-6.41), 0.39 (95%CI: 0.31-0.49), 10.81 (95%CI: 7.33-15.94), and 0.829, respectively, while the specificity, negative LR, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the fitted ROC curve of ≥ 16-slice SCT for N staging of colon cancer were 0.54 (95%CI: 0.49-0.59), 0.74 (95%CI: 0.70-0.77), 1.92 (95%CI: 1.36-2.70), 0.67 (95%CI: 0.51-0.87), 3.74 (95%CI: 1.76-7.94), and 0.829 respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of ≥ 16-slice SCT for colon cancer T staging were acceptable, while the sensitivity for colon cancer N staging was relatively low, though its specificity was acceptable. CONCLUSION: ≥ 16-slice SCT for local staging of colon cancer has good diagnostic value; however, the accuracy needs to be confirmed by further clinical practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.012
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.305
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.204 · 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