The association of <scp>CXCR</scp>4 expression with prognosis and clinicopathological indicators in colorectal carcinoma patients: a meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The clinical relevance of expression of chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) in colorectal carcinoma (CRC) remains controversial; our aim was to identify the precise relationship of CXCR4 to prognosis and clinicopathological features. METHODS AND RESULTS: A meta-analysis was performed. Original data included the hazard ratios (HRs) of recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and odds ratio (OR) in CRC patients. We pooled HR/OR with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to estimate the hazard. A total of 20 published studies (including 2253 patients) were eligible. RFS and OS were related significantly to CXCR4 expression, with HRs 1.62 (95% CI 1.24-2.11; P < 0.0001) and 1.68 (95% CI 1.31-2.14; P < 0.0001), respectively. In addition, a significant association was revealed between positive CXCR4 expression and age (less than median age: OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98; P = 0.03), stage (I and II: OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.32-0.66; P < 0.0001), grade (well/moderately differentiated: OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56-0.98; P = 0.04), location (colon: OR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.95; P = 0.02), lymph node invasion (present: OR2.14, 95% CI 1.36-3.37; P = 0.001),and distant metastasis (present: OR 2.40; 95% CI 1.36-4.23; P = 0.003). Heterogeneity was observed among the included studies with regard to stage (I(2) = 58 %), lymph node invasiveness (I(2) = 74%) and distant metastasis (I(2) = 56%). No publication bias was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Chemokine receptor 4 expression indicates poorer prognosis in older patients and advanced stage or poor differentiation in CRC, and also serves as an indicator of lymph node and distal organ metastasis. Surprisingly, high CXCR4 expression may indicate that the location of the tumour is the rectum. Thus, CXCR4 could help to predict outcome and guide clinical therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".