Expression of p63 in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Lung and its Diagnostic Significance: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The expression of p63 has been studied in various tumor types, including squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Methods and Results: Twenty-five trials met the inclusion criteria with a total of 1,193 patients. The overall positive proportion of p63 was 91.5% (95% CI, 86.3-94.8). Both histological and cytological methods of obtaining specimens showed a high expression of p63 in SCC at 89.8% (95% CI, 81.9-94.5) and 88.7% (95% CI, 80.9-93.6). The p63 positive proportion of the well or moderately differentiated subgroups was 92.7% (95% CI, 77.9-97.9) compared to the poorly differentiated subgroup at 86.9% (95% CI, 61.6-96.5). When using >1% of p63 immunoreactive cells as the positive standard, both sensitivity and specificity at 0.91 (95% CI, 0.86-0.94) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.85), respectively, were acceptable. When using >10% and >50% standards, sensitivities of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.94) and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.78-0.85) and specificities of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.82-0.86) and 0.92(95% CI, 0.90-0.94) were shown. Conclusions: In SCC, there is a high expression of p63, which has no association with the histological or cytological methods used to obtain specimens or the degree of differentiation of the specimens. Even when only a small amount of cells were stained (>1%) as the positive standard, the sensitivity and specificity of p63 were maintained at a high level. We suggest that >50% of immunoreactive cells be used as the positive standard to achieve proper sensitivity and specificity.
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 | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".