Prognostic role of HSF1 overexpression in solid tumors: a pooled analysis of 3,159 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: HSF1 is reported to be overexpressed in various solid tumors and play a pivotal role in cancer progression. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the potential prognostic role of HSF1 in patients with solid tumors. Methods: An extensive electronic search of three databases was performed for relevant articles. The pooled hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios with their corresponding 95% CI were calculated with a random-effects model. Heterogeneity and publication bias analyses were also conducted. Results: A total of 3,159 patients from 10 eligible studies were included into the analysis. The results showed that positive HSF1 expression was significantly correlated with poor overall survival in all tumors (HR=2.09; 95% CI: 1.62–2.70; P <0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed that there was a significant association between HSF1 overexpression and poor prognosis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) (HR=1.83; 95% CI: 1.21–2.77; P =0.004), breast cancer (BC) (HR=1.52; 95% CI: 1.24–2.86; P <0.001), hepatocellular carcinoma (HR=3.02; 95% CI: 1.77–5.18; P <0.001), non-small-cell lung cancer (HR=2.19; 95% CI: 1.20–3.99; P =0.01), and pancreatic cancer (HR=2.58; 95% CI: 1.11–6.03; P =0.03) but not in osteosarcoma (HR=1.58; 95% CI: 0.47–5.35; P =0.46). In addition, HSF1 overexpression was significantly associated with some phenotypes of tumor aggressiveness including TNM stage, histological grade, lymph node metastasis, and vascular invasion. Conclusion: HSF1 overexpression may prove to be an unfavorable prognostic biomarker for solid tumor patients. Keywords: HSF1, solid tumors, prognosis, overall survival, meta-analysis
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".