Fibroblast Activation Protein Overexpression in Gastrointestinal Tumors: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A hallmark of gastrointestinal cancer, especially pancreatic cancer, is the dense stromal tumor microenvironment in which cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) represent the major stromal cell type. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that depletion of fibroblast activation protein (FAP)-positive CAFs results in increased survival. OBJECTIVE: We present the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis that aim to assess the currently available evidence on the effect of FAP expression on survival and clinical characteristics in gastrointestinal cancers. METHODS: The literature search and data analysis will be conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 statement. The databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched via their respective online search engines. A meta-analysis comparing patients with and without FAP overexpression with the following outcomes will be performed: postoperative survival (overall and median survival; 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates), histological differentiation (grading), local tumor invasion, lymph node metastases, and distant metastases. Odds ratios will be calculated for binary data, and weighted mean differences and relative SD differences will be determined for continuous data. The 95% CI, heterogeneity measures, and statistical significance will be reported for each outcome. The chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests will be used to evaluate statistical significance. A P value of <.05 will be considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Database searches will commence in April 2023. The meta-analysis will be completed by December 2023. CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, several publications on FAP overexpression in gastrointestinal tumors have been published. The only published meta-analysis on this topic dates to 2015. It included 15 studies on various solid tumors and only 8 studies focusing exclusively on gastrointestinal tumors. The expected results of the present analysis will provide new evidence on the prognostic value of FAP in gastrointestinal tumors and thereby support health care professionals and patients in their decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022372194; https://tinyurl.com/352ae8b8. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/45176.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.062 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.005 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".