Clinicopathological differences of high Fusobacterium nucleatum levels in colorectal cancer: A review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To systematically evaluate the significance of Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn) levels the clinicopathological impacts of cancer. Methods Literature from Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science was retrieved to collect all English literatures on the correlation between Fn and cancer, and the quality of literatures collected was assessed based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The heterogeneity and sensitivity were detected by Stata 14.0 software, and the correlation between Fn and cancer clinicopathological as the effect variables was assessed according to the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The forest plot was drawn. Results A total of 19 articles meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. The incidence of Fn prevalence varied considerably (range: 6.1 to 83.3%) and was greater than 10% in 13 of 19 studies. Compared with those with no/low Fn levels, the high levels of Fn was positively associated with vascular invasion, nerve invasion, depth of invasion, and distant metastasis [vascular invasion: OR = 1.66, 95%CI(1.07, 2.57), I2 = 21.9%, fixed effect model; nerve invasion: OR = 1.36, 95%CI(1.00, 1.84), I2 = 43.1%, fixed effect model; infiltration depth: OR = 1.94, 95%CI(1.20, 3.15), I2 = 67.2%, random effect model; distant metastasis: OR = 1.80, 95%CI(1.23, 2.64), I2 = 3.4%, fixed effect model]. Patients with MLH1 methylation always present a higher Fn levels than those without methylation [OR = 2.53, 95%CI(1.42, 4.53), P = 0.01, I2 = 57.5%, random effect model]. Further, Fn was associatedwith the molecular characteristics of cancers [MSI-H Vs. MSS/MSI-low: OR = 2.92, 95%CI(1.61, 5.32), P = 0.01, I2 = 63.2%, random effect model; High Vs. Low/Negative CIMP: OR = 2.23, 95%CI(1.64, 3.03), P = 0.01, I2 = 64.2%, random effect model; KRAS mutation Vs. wild-type: OR = 1.24, 95%CI(1.04, 1.48), P = 0.02, I2 = 27.0%, fixed effect model; Present Vs. Abscent BRAF mutations: OR = 1.88, 95%CI(1.44, 2.45), P = 0.01, I2 = 24.2%, fixed effect model]. The cancer patients with high levels of Fn often have worse RFS than those with no/low Fn levels[OR = 1.14, 95%CI(0.61, 1.68), P = 0.01, I2 = 80.7%, random effect model]. Conclusion This review and meta-analysis showed that Fn could be used to predict unfavorable prognosis and function as potential prognostic biomarkers in colorectal cancer (CRC). Our data may have implications for targeting Fn to develop strategies for cancer prevention and treatment.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".