Pancreaticobiliary Maljunction and Its Relationship with Biliary Cancer: An Updated and Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Behalf of TROGSS—The Robotic Global Surgical Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the degree to which pancreaticobiliary maljunction (PBM) increases the risk of different types of biliary cancer (BC). Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct. We systematically searched from inception to April 2024. The search terms included were derived from the keywords “Pancreaticobiliary Maljunction” OR “Anomalous Pancreaticobiliary Junction” AND “Cancer” OR “Malignancy”. Studies that provided data comparing BC rates in relation to PBM presence or vice versa were included. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for quality assessment. The random-effects model was used. Results: Fifteen studies were included with a total sample of 8604 patients, of whom 5015 (58.29%) were female with a mean age of 54.58 years. Patients with PBM had 8.42 (95% CI = 3.57–19.87) more risk of developing any type of BC, with a higher risk of GBC than BDC (OR = 16.91 vs. OR = 3.36, p-value = 0.003). There was a higher risk of having PBM in patients with GBC than BDC only when considering the Asian population (OR = 3.12, 95% CI = 1.09–8.94). Meta-regression analysis revealed that neither mean age (p = 0.087) nor percentage of female patients in the study population (p = 0.197) were statistically associated with the variations in OR for the risk of BC based on the presence of PBM. Conclusions: There is a significant association between PBM and the risk of having BC, mainly GBC when compared to BDC. Most of the studies published reported data from Japanese patients, which limits the generalization of the results. The age of patients and sex were not significantly associated with the relation between PBM and BC. Further prospective studies in broader populations will provide additional details to take measures for screening and early management of PBM and BC.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".