MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2498044670 · doi:10.4103/0973-1482.144356

Neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio and CEA level as prognostic and predictive factors in colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2016· review· en· W2498044670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Po-Li Tsai, Wei‐Ju Su, Wei-Hung Leung, Cheng-Ta Lai, Chien‐Kuo Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory Biomarkers in Disease Prognosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCarcinoembryonic antigenInternal medicineColorectal cancerOdds ratioMeta-analysisConfidence intervalOncologyNeutrophil to lymphocyte ratioCancerLymphocyte

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: There is a growing body of evidence showing the functional relationship between inflammation index like netrophil.lymphocyte ratio. (NLR) and colorectal cancer. (CRC) in both experimental and clinical situations. The serum carcinoembryonic antigen. (CEA) level is the most widely used marker and associate with poor prognosis in most studies. For these factors to be clinically useful, they should be routinely available, well standardized, and validated in different patient cohorts. AIMS: There is a growing body of evidence showing the functional relationship between inflammation index like netrophil-lymphocyte ratio. (NLR) and colorectal cancer. (CRC) in both experimental and clinical situations. The serum carcinoembryonic antigen. (CEA) level is the most widely used marker and associate with poor prognosis in most studies. For these factors to be clinically useful, they should be routinely available, well standardized, and validated in different patient cohorts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systemically searched PubMed, Embase, and SciVerse Scopus databases, and performed a meta.analysis by Review Manager 5.2 software. (The Cochrane Collaboration, Software Update, Oxford). Two reviewers selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data independently. Newcastle.Ottawa Scale was applied to assess the quality of included studies. RESULTS: Fifteen studies involving 7741 patients with CRC were analyzed. Patients with an NLR < 5 before treatment were significantly more likely to have 5-year overall survival (odds ratio [OR] = 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.56-2.63) and 5-year disease-free survival (OR = 1.67; 95% CI = 1.19-2.35). Pretreatment CEA level < 5 were significantly associated with complete tumor response and tumor downstaging after neoadjuvant treatment. The result also showed that patients with NLR > 5 were expected to have a larger tumor, poorer tumor differentiation, and higher CEA level. CONCLUSION: NLR and CEA are valuable tools for the prediction of prognosis in CRC and adjusting the treatment strategy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations88
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cancer Research and TherapeuticsSame topicInflammatory Biomarkers in Disease PrognosisFrench-language works237,207