Prognostic Value of Hypoxia-Inducible Factor 1α in Solid Malignancies: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies have reported the prognostic role of Hypoxia-Inducible Factor 1α（HIF-1α）and solid malignancies, but the data of different reports remains controversial. To accurately evaluate the prognostic value of HIF-1α expression in solid malignancies, a meta-analysis based on published studies was conducted. Relevant studies from 34 observational articles with 3828 patients were collected via PubMed, Embase. These studies were chosen for the meta-analysis based on requisite criteria and the quality was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs) were pooled from studies on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) to estimate the association. The pooled HRs (95% CIs) of HIF-1α for OS and DFS were 1.94 [1.74, 2.16] and 2.16 [1.71, 2.74], respectively. The overall data of the shown meta-analysis suggested that the high expression of HIF-1α is correlated with poor survival outcome in solid malignancies.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".