Prognostic significance of tumour budding in noncolorectal gastrointestinal tract and pancreatobiliary tract: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tumour budding shows promise as a prognostic factor in various cancers, but its widespread application is hindered by the lack of large, validated studies and standardized criteria. This meta-analysis aims to review and examine the prognostic role of tumour budding specifically in noncolorectal gastrointestinal and pancreatobiliary tract cancers, broadening our perspective on its clinical relevance. The literature review was conducted through PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from inception till 20 February 2023. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to assess the relation between tumour budding and clinicopathologic features, as well as overall survival. Each study was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and both heterogeneity and publication bias were analysed. In this meta-analysis of 57 studies across various cancer types, multivariate HR revealed worse overall survival in oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (HR 3.34 [95% CI 2.21-5.04]), gastric adenocarcinoma (2.03 [1.38-2.99]), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (2.56 [2.02-3.25]), and biliary tract adenocarcinoma (3.11 [2.46-3.93]) with high-grade tumour budding. Additionally, high-grade tumour budding consistently correlated with adverse clinicopathological features, including lymph node metastasis, lymphovascular invasion, and distant metastasis without any observed inverse association. High heterogeneity was noted. Our study suggests that tumour budding is a valuable prognostic marker in various cancers. Nonetheless, standardized criteria tailored to specific organ types are necessary to enhance its clinical utility.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".