MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408547498 · doi:10.1186/s12885-025-13827-4

Prognostic evaluation and treatment strategies for cervical cancer in pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4408547498 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Siyuan Zeng, Xin Li, Simin Xiao, Changsheng Lin, Huiling Chen, Huijun Zhao, Xue Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cancer · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurgical oncologyMedicineCervical cancerMeta-analysisPregnancyMEDLINEOncologySystematic reviewObstetricsGynecologyCancerInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABTSTRAC: OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to evaluate the prognosis of cervical cancer in pregnancy (CCIP) and analyze the clinicopathological factors affecting the prognosis of this cancer. DATA SOURCES: The studies published through July 2024 were systematically retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The cohort studies, case-control studies, randomized controlled trials, and non-randomized controlled trials involving CCIP patients with data on 5-year overall survival (OS) were included in this study. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A meta-analysis was performed using Stata 15.0, focusing on the 5-year OS and relevant clinicopathological factors. RESULTS: The results demonstrated that the 5-year OS of patients with CCIP was similar to that of non-pregnant patients with cervical cancer (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94-1.06, P = 0.978). The subgroup analysis results revealed that tumor size (≥ 4 cm), International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (≥ IB2), and timing of diagnosis (postpartum) were prognostic factors with statistical significance (P < 0.05). However, such factors as pregnancy termination and timing of delivery did not significantly affect the 5-year OS (P > 0.05). The delivery mode required further validation despite its borderline significance (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that pregnancy does not exert a significant adverse effect on the long-term survival of patients with cervical cancer. Tumor size (≥ 4 cm), FIGO stage (≥ IB2), and time of diagnosis (postpartum) are identified as unfavorable prognostic factors for CCIP patients, while delivery mode requires further investigation. These findings provide strong evidence to support the optimization of personalized treatment strategies for CCIP patients.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.037
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.245
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC CancerSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207