Additional file 1 of Positive H. pylori status predicts better prognosis of non-cardiac gastric cancer patients: results from cohort study and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1: sTable 1. The modified Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale used for assessing the quality of the studies included in meta-analysis. sTable 2. Multivariable analysis of variables associated with the OS of patients in our cohort study. sFigure 1. Flow chart for patients screening in our cohort study. sFigure 2. Number of studies included in meta-analysis section. n: Number of gastric cancer patients. OS: overall survival. DFS: disease-free survival. RFS: relapse-free survival. sFigure 3. Galbraith’s plot for the association of H. pylori status at diagnosis with OS for GC patients. sFigure4. Leave-one-out analysis for the association of H. pylori status at diagnosis with OS for GC patients. sFigure 5. Cumulative meta-analysis for the association of H. pylori status at diagnosis with DFS for GC patients. sFigure 6. Forest plot for the association of H. pylori status with OS on GC (6 studies removed version). 6 studies removed: This version of forest plot displays result of meta-analysis when 6 studies were removed to reduce the heterogeneity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.811 | 0.044 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".