MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283585535 · doi:10.21037/gs-22-310

Influence of ovarian-sparing surgery and ovariectomy on prognosis in early cervical adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4283585535 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jiangxin Sheng, Yunhua Yi, Jichan Nie

Bibliographic record

VenueGland Surgery · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisPublication biasFunnel plotSubgroup analysisAdenocarcinomaOncologyStage (stratigraphy)Internal medicineMEDLINEGynecologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The effect of ovarian-sparing surgery versus ovariectomy on prognosis in early cervical adenocarcinoma is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of ovary preservation versus ovariectomy on the prognosis of patients with cervical adenocarcinoma. Methods: A literature search was conducted of the PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Medline, Central, China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases, and China Science Periodical Database. The subjects of the literature study were patients with cervical adenocarcinoma. The literature compared the prognostic impact of ovary-sparing versus ovariectomy surgery. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of the articles. The Chi-square test was used to test the heterogeneity of the articles, and the random-effects model was used if the results indicated heterogeneity. A subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were used to examine the source of heterogeneity. If there was no heterogeneity among the articles, a fixed-effects model was used. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger test. Results: A total of 3,467 patients with stage IA-IB cervical adenocarcinoma from 5 articles were included in the meta-analysis, of whom 995 had ovarian preservation and 1,895 had ovariectomy. There was no statistically significant difference in the 5-year overall survival (OS) between the stage IA-IIB cervical adenocarcinoma patients in the ovariectomy group and the ovarian preservation group (P=0.14). Additionally, there was no heterogeneity among these articles, and no publication bias (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the 5-year progression free survival (PFS) between the stage IA-IIB cervical adenocarcinoma patients in the ovariectomy group and the ovarian preservation group (P=0.11). Additionally, there was no heterogeneity among these articles, and no publication bias (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the 5-year disease specific survival (DSS) between the stage IA-IIB cervical adenocarcinoma patients in the ovariectomy group and the ovarian preservation group (P=0.48). Additionally, there was no heterogeneity among these articles, and no publication bias (P>0.05). Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in 5-year OS, PFS and DSS between ovarian-sparing surgery and oophorectomy for early-stage cervical adenocarcinoma. High-quality randomized controlled trials are still needed to verify this conclusion.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGland SurgerySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207