Changes in the gut microbiota of esophageal carcinoma patients based on 16S rRNA gene sequencing: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This study conducts a systematic review through meta-analysis, comparing the composition and diversity of the gut microbiome in patients with esophageal cancer and healthy individuals, and explores the relationship between risk factors and related factors of esophageal cancer. Methods According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), we comprehensively searched the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library. In addition, we applied the R programming language version 4.0.3 and Stata 15.1 software for data analysis. We also implemented the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), funnel plot analysis, Egger’s test, and Begg’s test to assess the risk of bias. Results In this study, a total of 328 studies were identified through the literature search. Among them, 117 duplicate studies were removed, and 202 studies were excluded based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally, 9 studies were included in the analysis, involving a total of 216 patients with esophageal carcinoma and 352 healthy controls. Four studies provided Chao1 index for quantitative consolidation (ES = 637.41, 95% CI: 549.16 to 725.66, p = 0.000, I2 = 98.2%). Two studies [27, 29] reported ACE index (ES = 438.89, 95% CI: 362.42 to 515.35, p = 0.000, I2 = 97%). Seven studies [26,27,29,30,32] reported the Shannon index for quantitative consolidation (ES = 4.38, 95% CI: 3.95 to 4.81, p = 0.000, I2 = 99%). At the phylum level, the abundance of Bacteroidetes(ES = 37.8, 95% CI: 25.75 to 49.85, p = 0.000, I2 = 87.2%) and Proteobacteria(ES = 7.48, 95% CI: 5.02 to 8.85, p = 0.04, I2 = 2.4%) have statistical difference between ESCC and HC. There was no significant difference between ESCC and HC in the abundance of genera(p>0.05). Conclusions This observational meta-analysis revealed that changes in the GM were correlated with esophageal carcinoma, and variations in some advantageous GM might involve regional differences. Additionally, the study aims to facilitate early diagnosis of esophageal cancer and improve screening and diagnostic efficiency.
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 | 0.020 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".