Meta-analysis of the efficacy of applying reduced surgery for the treatment of asymptomatic unresectable advanced gastric cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Systematic evaluation of the efficacy and safety of reduction surgery in asymptomatic unresectable advanced gastric cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from database inception to 12 July 2024. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate the quality and analyze the bias of the randomized controlled and non-randomized controlled studies included in this study, and RevMan (Version 5.4) was used to perform the meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 5 studies were finally included, including 1 randomized controlled study and 4 retrospective studies. The cumulative sample size was 1717 cases, including 701 cases in the reduced surgery group and 1016 cases in the non-surgical treatment group. The results of the Meta-analysis showed that the reduced surgery group did not offer a survival benefit compared with the non-surgical treatment group in terms of 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival rates. The reduced surgery group had a longer median survival time than the non-surgical group by 11.58 months. The incidence rate, morbidity rate, and mortality rate of the reduced surgery group were 5.5% and 6.5% higher than those of the non-surgical group, respectively. The incidence of perioperative complications and death rate in the reduced surgery group were 15% and 4%, respectively; about 3% of patients might have complications of the primary foci during non-surgical treatment and need palliative surgical resection. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that in asymptomatic patients with unresectable advanced gastric cancer, reduced surgery with resection of the primary site does not result in a long-term survival benefit. We look forward to more high-quality randomized controlled trials to provide more substantial evidence to support clinical practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".