MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408144025 · doi:10.1186/s13027-025-00644-4

Polyomaviruses and the risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4408144025 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInfectious Agents and Cancer · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPolyomavirus and related diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisBreast cancerPublication biasChecklistConfidence intervalSystematic reviewCancerDemographyMEDLINEOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is a major global health problem worldwide, affecting more than 2.25 million women annually. The disease is influenced by various factors, including some viruses, gender, age, and family history. This study aimed to conducting a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of existing studies on the polyomaviruses in breast cancer. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to provide an evidence-based analysis of the relationship between polyomaviruses and breast cancer. The global online databases were used to identify relevant studies published from 2000 to July 2024. The quality of each article was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist. Data analysis was performed using STATA software, and standard errors of prevalence were calculated using the binomial distribution formula. Heterogeneity of study results was evaluated using the I-square and Q index, while publication bias was examined using the Begg's test. A random effects model was used to determine prevalence rates, and a forest plot diagram was used to present results with 95% confidence intervals. The Trim and Fill test was applied to estimate publication bias, and sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the influence of individual studies on the overall estimate. RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this analysis. In this study, the prevalence of BKV, JCV, HPyV7, KIV, WUV, SV40, and TSV in breast cancer patients was found to be 0%. By combining the results of these studies, the prevalence of PyV, MCV, and HPyV6 in breast cancer patients was 11%, 4%, and 1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis presented here provides an exhaustive overview of the current literature on the prevalence of polyomaviruses in breast cancer patients. Findings indicate a potentially stronger association between PyV and breast cancer than other human polyomaviruses.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.330 · 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