CD147 and Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is one of the most common non-cutaneous malignancies in men. We aimed to systemically evaluate the relationship between the expression of CD147 in tissues and the clinicopathological features of prostate cancer. METHODS AND FINDINGS: PubMed (1966-2016), EMBASE (1980-2016), the Cochrane Library (1996-2016), Web of Science (1945-2016), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1982-2016), and the WanFang databases (1988-2016) were searched. Literature quality assessment was performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 13.0. A total of 12591 prostate cancer patients from 14 studies were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that there were significant differences in the positive expression rate in the following comparisons: prostatic cancer tissues vs. normal prostate tissues (odds ratio [OR] = 26.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.95-91.20, P < 0.00001), prostatic cancer tissues vs. benign prostatic hyperplasia tissues (OR = 20.54, 95% CI 8.20-51.44, P < 0.00001), high Gleason score vs. low Gleason score (OR = 2.39, 95% CI 1.33-4.27, P = 0.03), TNM III to IV vs. TNM I to II (OR = 9.95, 95% CI 4.96-19.96, P < 0.00001), low or moderate differentiation vs. high differentiation (OR = 8.12, 95% CI 3.69-17.85, P < 0.00001), lymph node metastasis vs. non-lymph node metastasis (OR = 4.31, 95% CI 1.11-16.71, P = 0.03), and distant metastasis vs. non-distant metastasis (OR = 8.90, 95% CI 3.24-24.42, P < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: The CD147 positive expression rate was closely related to the clinical characteristics of prostate cancer, but more research is needed to confirm the findings owing to the results of the subgroups.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 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".