Vitamin B12 deficiency after total gastrectomy for gastric cancer, prevalence, and symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Nutrient deficiency is one of the common complications in patients who undergo gastrectomy, especially those vitamins and minerals absorbed in the stomach or by substances in the gastric juice, such as vitamin B12. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted for the first time to investigate the prevalence of vitamin B12 deficiency and its symptoms in gastric cancer (GC) patients who underwent gastrectomy. METHOD: PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases were searched to find related studies. After screening, studies were selected based on the abstract and title of related studies. The heterogeneity and inconsistency between studies were evaluated using Cochran's Q, I 2 tests. Egger's test analyzed publication bias for studies. A 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used to estimate the overall prevalence of vitamin B12 deficiency. RESULTS: Fourteen studies, including 2627 GC patients who underwent surgery, were included in the study. The mean age of the patients in this study was 61.2 ± 4.93 years. The pooled estimate of meta-analysis results showed that the prevalence of vitamin B12 deficiency after gastrectomy in patients with GC was 48.8% (95% CI:32.4, 65.2%, I 2 : 98.85, τ 2 = 0.05, Q (13) = 1127.8, P < 0.001). The most important symptoms were anemia, fatigability, cold feet or legs, numbness, and dizziness. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Vitamin B12 deficiency has a high prevalence among patients who have undergone gastrectomy, and it is necessary to pay enough attention to treating these patients after surgery to prevent its complications.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| 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".