Prognostic Role of Lactate Dehydrogenase Expression in Urologic Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The prognostic role of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) in urinary system cancer is still controversial. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the prognostic significance of LDH for patients with urinary system cancer. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Embase, Springer and CNKI databases for studies published from January 1991 to February 2015 associated with LDH and urinary system cancer. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. After careful review, survival data were extracted from eligible studies. We used pooled hazard ratios (HRs) to estimate the effect of LDH on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: 44 studies meeting the criterion were included. High expression of LDH was significantly correlated with poor OS in urologic cancer (pooled HR 1.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.81-2.07; p < 0.001). The pooled HRs showed significant difference in PFS between LDH over expression group with LDH low expression group (Pooled HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.61-2.36; p < 0.001) in urologic cancer. CONCLUSION: High serum LDH is associated with OS and PFS in patients with urinary system cancer, and it is an effective biomarker of prognosis in patients with urologic cancer.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".