MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884097627 · doi:10.1155/2018/4621015

Prognostic and Clinicopathological Value of<i>PINX1</i>in Various Human Tumors: A Meta-Analysis

2018· review· en· W2884097627 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hao Liang, Zhiyong Xiong, Ying Li, Weihao Kong, Zhicheng Yao, Ruixi Li, Meihai Deng, Kunpeng Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueBioMed Research International · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelomeres, Telomerase, and Senescence
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsInternal medicineHazard ratioMeta-analysisMedicineOncologyConfidence intervalDiagnostic odds ratioOdds ratioBiomarkerSubgroup analysisOverall survivalBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PINX1 (Pin2/TRF1 interacting protein X1, an intrinsic telomerase inhibitor and putative tumor suppressor gene) may represent a novel prognostic tumor biomarker. However, the results of previous studies are inconsistent and the prognostic value of PINX1 remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine whether PINX1 expression is associated with overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), disease-free survival (DFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and clinicopathological characteristics in patients with malignant tumors. A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases in April 2018. Quality assessment was performed according to the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95.0% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to determine the relationship between PINX1 expression and OS, DSS, DFS/RFS, and clinicopathological characteristics. Due to the heterogeneity across the included studies, subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. Fixed-effects models were used when the heterogeneity was not significant and random-effects models were used when the heterogeneity was significant. Fourteen studies of 16 cohorts including 2,624 patients were enrolled. Low PINX1 expression was associated with poor OS (HR: 1.51, 95.0% CI: 1.03–2.20; P = 0.035) and DFS/RFS (HR: 1.78, 95.0% CI: 1.28–2.47; P = 0.001) but not DSS (HR: 0.80, 95.0% CI: 0.38–1.67; P = 0.548). Low PINX1 expression was also associated with lymphatic invasion (OR: 2.23, 95.0% CI: 1.35–3.70; P = 0.002) and advanced tumor-node-metastasis stage (OR: 2.43, 95.0% CI: 1.29–4.57; P = 0.006). No significant associations were observed between low PINX1 expression and sex, depth of invasion, grade of differentiation, and distant metastasis. Low PINX1 expression was associated with poor OS and DFS/RFS and lymphatic invasion and advanced tumor-node-metastasis stage, suggesting that PINX1 expression may be a useful predictor of prognosis in patients with malignant tumors.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.451
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.091 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioMed Research InternationalSame topicTelomeres, Telomerase, and SenescenceFrench-language works237,207