Supplementary Material for: Helicobacter pylori infection as predictor of treatment outcomes of gastric cancer: a systematic review and metanalysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Helicobacter pylori infection is strongly associated with gastric cancer. However, there is currently no consensus on the association between H. pylori and gastric cancer prognosis. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on studies in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science up to March 10, 2022. The quality of all included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were extracted to analyze the association between H. pylori infection and prognosis of gastric cancer. In addition, subgroup analysis and publication bias were performed. Results: A total of 21 studies were involved. The pooled HR was 0.67 (95%CI, 0.56-0.79) for overall survival (OS) in H. pylori-positive patients, with the control (HR=1) being the H. pylori-negative group. In the subgroup analysis, the pooled HR was 0.38 (95%CI, 0.24-0.59) for OS in H. pylori-positive patients who received surgery combined with chemotherapy. The pooled HR for disease-free survival was 0.74 (95%CI, 0.63-0.8), and 0.41 (95%CI, 0.26-0.65) in patients received surgery combined with chemotherapy. Conclusions: H. pylori-positive gastric cancer patients have a better overall prognosis than negative patients. Helicobacter pylori infection has improved the prognosis of patients undergoing surgery or chemotherapy, among which the improvement was most obvious in patients undergoing surgery combined with chemotherapy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.484 | 0.017 |
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".