MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408884836 · doi:10.1093/bjsopen/zraf007

Relationship between pancreatic cancer resection rate and survival at population level: systematic review

2025· review· en· W4408884836 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBJS Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
FundersUniversity of MelbourneAustralian Government
KeywordsPancreatic cancerMedicinePerioperativePopulationSurvival rateMortality rateInternal medicineSurvival analysisCancerProportional hazards modelOncologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Surgery combined with chemotherapy provides the best chance of survival in pancreatic cancer. This study investigated whether increasing the resection rate at a population level improves overall survival and modelled the interaction between resection rate, perioperative mortality rate, and population survival. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted on studies reporting resection rate and survival outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer at a population level. MEDLINE, Embase and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews were searched up to February 2024. The primary outcome was overall population-level survival. A model for 1-year survival incorporating varying resection and perioperative mortality rates was developed. RESULTS: The search identified 3967 studies; 19 were eligible (516 789 patients). A significant association was observed between resection rate and pancreatic cancer population survival at 1 year (r2 = 0.46, P = 0.001). A weak but significant association was noted between resection rate and (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy (r2 = 0.26, P = 0.03). One-year pancreatic cancer population survival was significantly associated with chemotherapy (r2 = 0.63; P = 0.004), but the effect was weaker than for resection rate (regression slope 0.26 versus 0.94 respectively). According to the developed model, for example, increasing the resection rate from 10 to 15% and perioperative mortality rate from 2 to 3% would lead to a 1-year survival increase from 17.6% to 22.1%. CONCLUSION: A higher resection rate at a population level was associated with improved survival of the pancreatic cancer population. While some of this benefit was linked to increasing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy use, the effect of resection rate was stronger. Strategies to enhance the resection rate at national and regional levels should be explored. Establishing a benchmark for resection rate could support patient-centred healthcare and promote equitable access to high-quality pancreatic cancer 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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.346
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.173 · 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