MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802246789

Effect of metformin on the prognosis of diabetic patients combined with gynecologic cancer: A Meta-analysis

2018· article· en· W2802246789 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zilong Chen, Xing Fan, Ling Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJiefangjun yixue zazhi · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMetforminMeta-analysisInternal medicinePublication biasHazard ratioSubgroup analysisFunnel plotEndometrial cancerOncologyCervical cancerCohort studyCancerConfidence intervalInsulin
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To systematically evaluate the effect of metformin on the prognosis of diabetic patients combined with gynecologic cancer. Methods The database including PubMed, Embase, CNKI and Wangfang, were electronically searched with no language restriction from their inception to March 2017 to collect the studies about the effect of metformin on the prognosis of diabetic patients combined with gynecologic cancer. The references in reviews were also searched. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers screened the literatures independently, extracted data and assessed methodological quality by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The primary end points included overall survival (OS) and progress free survival (PFS). The outcome measures were the pooled hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). I2 was performed in a heterogeneity assessment. Publication bias was evaluated by using Begg's funnel plot and Egger's test, and the sensitivity analysis was conducted to confirm robustness. The Meta-analysis was performed using STATA 12.0 software. Results Sixteen eligible retrospective cohort studies were included and the score of quality assessment were ranged from 6 to 9. The Meta-analysis showed that metformin could improve the OS of diabetic patients with gynecologic tumors (HR=0.71, 95%CI 0.59-0.85, P=0.000). Subgroup analysis revealed that metformin could improve the OS of diabetic patients combined with endometrial cancer (HR=0.70, 95%CI 0.54-0.89, P=0.004) and diabetic patients combined with cervical cancer (HR=0.95, 95%CI 0.90-1.00, P=0.048). Meanwhile metformin improved the OS (HR=0.56, 95%CI 0.38-0.83, P=0.004) and PFS (HR=0.45, 95%CI 0.30-0.68, P=0.000) of diabetic patients with ovarian cancer after adjusting for confounders. Conclusions The use of metformin is positive for the prognosis of diabetic patients combined with gynecologic cancer. It may improve the OS of diabetic patients with endometrial cancer and diabetic patients with cervical cancer. In addition, it improves the OS and PFS of diabetic patients with ovarian cancer. DOI: 10.11855/j.issn.0577-7402.2018.02.11

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJiefangjun yixue zazhiSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207