Epigenetics and field cancerization as the caveats of carcinogenesis and recurrence of gastrointestinal malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gastrointestinal malignancies constitute the most common neoplasms with increasing prevalence worldwide, which portend a dismal morbidity and higher mortality rate. Epigenetic phenotypes and field cancerization impute a cutting edge for precursor of several gastrointestinal malignancies; this genetic aberration has been implicated in tumorigenesis and recurrence of gastrointestinal malignancies. This systematic review aims at assessing the effect of epigenetics and field cancerization on carcinogenesis and recurrence of gastrointestinal malignancies. This systematic review and meta-analysis will administer the provisions of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis 2020 guideline, and the review protocol has been registered at PROSPERO. The literature search will be executed through several electronic databases including EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Global Index Medicus, Semantic Scholar and Google Scholar. All original research articles reporting on the effect of epigenetic signatures, epigenetics and field cancerization on the carcinogenesis and recurrence of gastrointestinal cancers in adults will be included. Only articles with Newcastle–Ottawa Scale score above 4 and low risk of bias based on D1–D5 for randomized controlled trials will be included for a meta-analysis. There is no involvement of human subject participation in this review, thus giving no effect to ethical clearance approval. The evidence report of this review will be disseminated on scientific conferences and will be published to a reputable journal of gastroenterology oncology. This review has been registered at PROSPERO registry ID CRD 42023391339.
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 | 0.066 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.008 |
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".