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 ofPINX1remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine whetherPINX1expression 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 betweenPINX1expression 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. LowPINX1expression 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). LowPINX1expression 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 lowPINX1expression and sex, depth of invasion, grade of differentiation, and distant metastasis. LowPINX1expression was associated with poor OS and DFS/RFS and lymphatic invasion and advanced tumor-node-metastasis stage, suggesting thatPINX1expression 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.047
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.451
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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