Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early signet ring cell gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for treating early signet ring cell carcinoma (SRC) is controversial due to the risk of lymph node metastasis. AIM: To carry out a meta-analysis to evaluate ESD for therapeutic efficacy and safety in early signet ring cell gastric cancer. METHODS: resection, and adverse events were extracted and analyzed. The methodological quality of the enrolled studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Publication bias was evaluated by the Egger's test. Institutional review board approval and written consent were not needed for this report. RESULTS: = 0.348), respectively. The curative resection, vertical margin invasion, and lateral margin invasion rates were 72.1% (145/341), 2.3% (8/348), and 34.45% (41/119), respectively. CONCLUSION: ESD constitutes a promising therapeutic approach for early undifferentiated SRC gastric cancer. However, further improvements are required for increasing its treatment efficacy and reducing adverse outcomes.
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) | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".