MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980386025 · doi:10.1186/s12885-019-6136-9

A pair-wise meta-analysis highlights circular RNAs as potential biomarkers for colorectal cancer

2019· review· en· W2980386025 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chen Li, Xinli He, Lele Zhang, Lanying Li, Wenzhao Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cancer · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCircular RNAs in diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColorectal cancerMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineDiagnostic odds ratioConfidence intervalSurgical oncologyOncologyMeta-analysisOdds ratioLymphovascular invasionMetastasisCancerStage (stratigraphy)CarcinogenesisBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Circular RNAs (circRNAs) have emerged as a special subset of endogenous RNAs that are implicated in tumorigenesis and cancer progression. Herein we aim to carry out a meta-analysis to evaluate the clinicopathologic, diagnostic and prognostic significance of circRNA expression in colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods A systematic search of online databases was performed for original articles published in English, which investigated the diagnostic accuracy, prognostic utility, and clinicopathologic association of circRNA(s) in CRC. Data were strictly extracted and study bias was judged using the Quality Assessment for Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy II (QUADAS II) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklists. Results A total of 13 studies, involving 1430 patients with CRC, were included in the meta-analysis. The clinicopathologic study showed that abnormally expressed circRNAs were correlated with tumor diameter ( P = 0.0350), differentiation ( P = 0.0038), lymphatic metastasis ( P = 0.0119), distant metastasis ( P < 0.0001), TNM stage ( P = 0.0002), and depth of invasion ( P = 0.001) in patients with CRC. The summary area under the curve (AUC) of circRNA for the discriminative efficacy between patients with and without CRC was estimated to be 0.79, corresponding to a weighted sensitivity of 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74–0.79], specificity of 0.67 (95%CI: 0.64–0.70), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 7.52 (95%CI: 4.66–12.12). Survival analysis showed that highly expressed circRNAs were correlated with significantly worse overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.66, 95%CI: 2.03–3.50, P = 0.000; X 2 = 4.34, P = 0.740, I 2 = 0.0%], whereas lower expression of circRNAs was associated with prolonged OS (weighted HR = 0.30, 95%CI: 0.17–0.53, P = 0.000; X 2 = 1.34, P = 0.909, I 2 = 0.0%). Stratified analysis in circRNA expression status, and test matrix also showed robust results. Conclusion Abnormally expressed circRNAs may be auxiliary biomarkers facilitating CRC diagnosis, and promising prognostic biomarkers in predicting the survival of CRC patients.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.010
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC CancerSame topicCircular RNAs in diseasesFrench-language works237,207