Effect of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy on patients with advanced colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Main outcome(s)The primary outcomes included o v e r a l l s u r v i v a l , r e c u r r e n c e r a t e , a n d complications.Quality assessment / Risk of bias analysis For randomised controlled trials, we used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool to assess the risk of bias, and for high-quality cohort studies, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).Strategy of data synthesis RevMan 5.3 was used to perform statistical analysis.The odds ratio (OR) was calculated for dichotomous data.We will use a random effects model, because differences in duration, frequency, and dose of HIPEC measures are unavoidable.Heterogeneity between studies will be examined using the Cochran Q statistic and the I measure.Results are presented in a forest plot. Subgroup analysisWe will perform subgroup analyses of HIPEC for the treatment of peritoneal metastases or the prevention of peritoneal metastases, randomised controlled trials or nonrandomised controlled trials, and the location of the colorectal cancer primary. Sensitivity analysisIn case of heterogeneity greater than 80%, we performed a sensitivity analysis and excluded studies with significant heterogeneity from the analysis. Country(ies) involvedChina.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".