MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011082741 · doi:10.3390/cancers12030671

Statin Use and the Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

2020· review· en· W3011082741 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Md. Mohaimenul Islam, Tahmina Nasrin Poly, Bruno Walther, Hsuan‐Chia Yang, Yu‐Chuan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Lipids, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Education, India
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineHepatocellular carcinomaMeta-analysisConfidence intervalRelative riskObservational studyStatinCirrhosisPublication biasOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Aims: Statins are the first-line medication to treating hypercholesterolemia. Several studies have investigated the impact of statins on the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the extent to which statins may prevent HCC remains uncertain. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of relevant studies to quantify the magnitude of the association between statins use and the risk of HCC. Methods: A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus was performed for studies published between January 1, 1990, and September 1, 2019, with no restriction of language. Two reviewers independently evaluated the literature and included observational and experimental studies that reported the association between statin use and HCC risk. The random-effect model was used to calculate the overall risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), and the heterogeneity among the studies was assessed using the Q statistic and I2 statistic. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) was also used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Results: A total of 24 studies with 59,073 HCC patients was identified. Statin use was associated with a reduced risk of HCC development (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.47–0.61, I2 = 84.39%) compared with nonusers. Moreover, the rate of HCC reduction was also significant among patients with diabetes (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.28–0.70), liver cirrhosis (RR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.30–0.42), and antiviral therapy (RR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.08–0.59) compared with nonusers. Conclusion: This study serves as additional evidence supporting the beneficial inhibitory effect of statins on HCC incidence. The subgroup analyses of this study also highlight that statins are significantly associated with a reduced risk of HCC and may help to direct future prevention efforts. Additional large clinical studies are needed to determine whether statins are associated with a lower risk of HCC.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.056
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.156 · 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

Citations88
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicCancer, Lipids, and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207