Prognostic value of IGF-1R expression in bone and soft tissue sarcomas: comments on a meta-analysis by Liang et al
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, we read with deep interest a meta-analysis by Liang et al entitled "Prognostic value of IGF-1R expression in bone and soft tissue sarcomas: a meta-analysis" 1 published in OncoTargets and Therapy. In this article, the investigators systematically reviewed the trials on the effects of IGF-1R expression in various bone and soft tissue sarcomas (BSTSs) and performed a meta-analysis. They reached an important conclusion that elevated IGF-1R expression was associated with poor overall survival in BSTS patients. Furthermore, subgroup analysis revealed that IGF-1R level was negatively correlated with prognosis in osteosarcoma but not significantly associated with Ewing's sarcoma. Nevertheless, before their results can be accepted, some worthwhile issues need to be addressed first. 1. To begin with, there are quite a few deficiencies in the literature research. First, only two electronic databases (PubMed and Web of Science) were systematically searched to identify eligible studies. In our opinion, more electronic databases, including Embase, Ovid, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and several Chinese databases (CNKI (Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure), CBM (Chinese Biology Medicine) disc, VIP, Wanfang database, etc) should be thoroughly searched to achieve a comprehensive literature retrieval. Second, the search strategy report of database and manual search protocol were not clearly described, 1 which may be regarded as a flaw in the metaanalysis. Third, the publication language of selected literature was strangely limited to English, which could inevitably lead to potential language bias. 1 2. With respect to quality assessment section, the investigators clarified that "A study was considered high-quality if it achieved a score of 7 or more", while a low-quality study conducted by van Gaal et al 2 with a Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale score of 6 was not excluded by the investigators 1 (Table We would like to know the possible reason for the inclusion of this study. In addition, the authors claimed that they performed this meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) standardized guidelines. 3 However, sensitivity analysis, a procedure which is strongly recommended in PRISMA guidelines, was not performed in this review. We take the attitude that any effort to increase the credibility of meta-analysis should be attached importance
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it