Neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio and CEA level as prognostic and predictive factors in colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".