MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415665922 · doi:10.1186/s12957-025-04066-9

Postoperative prognostic factors in patients with T2 gallbladder cancer: a meta-analysis

2025· article· en· W4415665922 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yue Zuo, Shaohua Le, Chang Yu, Zhengdong Deng, Hui Xia, Jianming Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Surgical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSurgical oncologyCholecystectomyGallbladder cancerPerineural invasionConfidence intervalLymph node metastasisGallbladderMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine postoperative prognostic factors in patients with T2 gallbladder cancer (GBC) to determine factors linked to survival outcomes. The results can inform clinical decision-making and guide personalized treatment plans. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were retrieved up to March 12, 2025. The included articles were scored via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed via Stata 15.0. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (n = 8,095) were included. Factors associated with worse overall survival (OS) included age > 60 years (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00–1.05) and hepatic-side tumors (HR = 2.89, 95% CI: 2.14–3.90). There was a non-significant trend toward poorer OS with male sex (HR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.89–2.23). Several associations became significant after sensitivity analyses eliminated sources of heterogeneity: lymph node (LN) metastasis (HR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.56–3.07), perineural invasion (PNI) (HR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.74–3.03), simple cholecystectomy (SC) (HR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.00–2.13), and extended cholecystectomy (EC), the latter of which was protective (HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52–0.87). Additional protective factors included LN dissection (HR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.38–0.86) and R0 resection (HR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.05–0.91). For disease-free survival (DFS), LN metastasis (HR = 2.46, 95% CI: 1.50–4.04) and PNI (HR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.36–3.04) were independent predictors of a poor outcome, which was confirmed again after sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: For postoperative patients with T2 GBC, factors, including age > 60 years, male gender, hepatic lateral tumor, LN metastasis, PNI, and SC were linked to worse OS. LN metastasis and PNI significantly affected DFS. EC and LN dissection may improve prognosis.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.329
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Surgical OncologySame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207