MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402922442 · doi:10.3390/curroncol31100430

The Impact of Gastrectomy on Inflammatory Bowel Disease Risk in Gastric Cancer Patients: A Critical Analysis

2024· review· en· W4402922442 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Grigorios Christodoulidis, Konstantinos Eleftherios Koumarelas, Kyriaki Tsagkidou, Eirini-Sara Agko, Dimitra Bartzi, Dimitrios Zacharoulis

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDysbiosisUlcerative colitisGastroenterologyGastrointestinal tractGastrectomyInternal medicineDiseaseInflammatory bowel diseaseGut floraSleeve gastrectomyCancerColorectal cancerImmunologyWeight lossGastric bypassObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gastrectomy, a prevalent surgical procedure for gastric cancer, results in substantial alterations to the gastrointestinal tract, including reduced gastric acid production and significant modifications to the gut microbiota. These changes can impair postoperative recovery, influence metabolic functions, and predispose patients to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Studies have shown an increased risk of IBD, particularly Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), in patients following gastrectomy and bariatric surgeries such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG). For instance, patients undergoing RYGB have a higher hazard ratio for developing CD, while SG patients show an increased risk for UC. The surgical alteration of the gastrointestinal tract promotes dysbiosis, with a significant increase in pathogenic bacteria and a decrease in beneficial microbial populations. This dysbiosis can impair the intestinal mucosal barrier and promote systemic inflammation. Understanding the mechanisms behind these changes and their clinical implications is essential for developing effective postoperative management strategies. Probiotics and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have shown promise in mitigating these adverse effects, improving gut microbiota balance, and enhancing patient outcomes. Further research is necessary to fully elucidate the long-term impacts of gastrectomy on gastrointestinal health and to refine therapeutic approaches for postoperative care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.402 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207