Expression of CXCR4 and non-small cell lung cancer prognosis: a meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The prognostic value of aberrant C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR4) levels in NSCLC has been described in empirical studies. This meta-analysis evaluates the value of CXCR4 as a prognostic marker for NSCLC and determines the relationship between CXCR4 and clinicopathological features of NSCLC. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the English-language literature in PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and Web of Science was performed. Articles containing sufficient published data to determine an estimate of the hazard ratio (HR) and a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for over survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) were selected. Of 417 potentially relevant studies, 10 eligible studies (1,334 NSCLC patients) met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Overall, high CXCR4 expression was significantly associated with a poor OS rate (HR=1.59, 95% CI=1.36-1.87, P<0.001) while the association with DFS was not statistically significant (HR=1.00, 95% CI=0.37-2.69, P=0.993). Stratified analysis by subcellular localization found that CXCR4 overexpression in the non-nucleus predicts poor OS (HR=1.65, 95% CI=1.40-1.95, P<0.001) and DFS (HR=3.06, 95% CI=2.15-4.37, P<0.001), but elevated CXCR4 expression in the nucleus was positively associated with DFS (HR=0.44, 95% CI=0.26-0.75, P=0.002). NSCLC patients with CXCR4 expression were more likely to be diagnosed with adenocarcinoma cancer (OR=1.45, 95% CI=1.07-1.95, P=0.016), lymph node involvement (OR=0.69, 95% CI=0.50-0.96, P=0.027), and distant metastasis (OR=0.36, 95% CI=0.14-0.93, P=0.035). CONCLUSION: Aberrant overexpression of CXCR4 is associated with worse overall survival, adenocarcinoma histology, distant metastasis, lymph node involvement in NSCLC.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".