Associations between statin use and non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) risk and survival: a meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Evidence on the effect of statin use on non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) is not clear. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to examine the associations between statin use and NHL risk and survival. We searched multiple literature sources up to October 2014 and identified 10 studies on the risk of diagnosis with NHL and 9 studies on survival. Random effects model was used to calculate pooled odds ratio (PORs) for risk and pooled hazard ratio (PHR) for survival. Heterogeneity among studies was examined using the Tau‐squared and the I‐squared (I2) tests. Statin use was associated with reduced risk for total NHL (POR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.69–0.99). Among statin users, there was a lower incidence risk for marginal zone lymphoma (POR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.31–0.94), but this was not observed for other types of NHL. However, statin use did not affect overall survival (PHR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.99–1.06) or event‐free survival (PHR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.87–1.12) in diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma. There is suggestive epidemiological evidence that statins decrease the risk of NHL, but they do not influence survival in NHL patients. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".