ArticleCancers2025
Understanding the Will Rogers Phenomenon in Cholangiocarcinoma Research and Beyond.
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe existing literature highlights a lack of comparative studies between subtypes of cholangiocarcinoma (CC) and the impact of misclassification on the epidemiological parameters.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the surgical outcomes. The authors used Poisson regression with modified errors to calculate the risk ratios (RR) and reported post-estimation marginal effects. Coefficient estimates, variance inflation factors, and Pearson's goodness-of-fit test statistics were used to check for multicollinearity and model fit, respectively. We also performed a reclassification analysis by modeling Klatskin tumors (PCC) as extrahepatic (ECC), reclassifying them as intrahepatic (ICC), and comparing the corresponding changes in estimates.
resultsRegression analysis revealed an increased risk of death in patients with ICC (RR = 2.05, 95% CI 1.11-3.78) and PCC (RR = 2.03, 95% CI 0.97-4.24) compared to those with DCC. When PCC was analyzed as an ECC, the ICC revealed an RR of 1.52 (95% CI 0.84-2.73). Further reclassification of PCC showed an RR of 2.04 for ICC (95% CI: 1.53-3.53). The adjusted marginal effects saw a reduction in the death probability for both ICC and ECC. However, post hoc analyses revealed insufficient evidence for differences between the reclassified models.
conclusionsPatients with DCC had slightly better prognosis compared to ICC and PCC. We found no differences in survival between ICC and ECC (combining DCC and PCC). The decrease in mortality risk due to reclassification in both groups was not confirmed statistically. Future studies should focus on statistical evidence when referring to the Will Rogers phenomenon, instead of inferring from raw comparisons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.