The Prognostic Value of Autophagy‐Related Markers Bclin‐1 and LC‐3 in Colorectal Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. At present, the relationship between autophagosomes and the prognosis of various cancers has become a subject of active investigation. A series of studies have demonstrated the correlation between autophagy microtubule‐associated protein light chain 3 (LC‐3), Beclin‐1, and colorectal cancer (CRC). Since autophagy has dual regulatory roles in tumors, the results of this correlation are also uncertain. Hence, we summarized the relationship between Beclin‐1, LC‐3, and CRC using systematic reviews and meta‐analysis to clarify their prognostic significance in it. Methods. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched online up to April 1, 2019. The quality of the involving studies was assessed against the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (NOS). Pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) in a fixed or random effects model were used to assess the strength of correlation between Beclin‐1, LC‐3, and CRC. Results. A total of 9 articles were collected, involving 2,297 patients. Most literatures scored more than 6 points, suggesting that the quality of our including research was acceptable. Our finding suggested that the expression of Beclin‐1 was not associated with overall survival (HR = 0.68, 95% CI (0.31–1.52), P = 0.351). Nonetheless, LC‐3 expression exerted significant impact on OS (HR = 0.51, 95% CI (0.35–0.74), P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis exhibited that Beclin‐1 expression was associated with OS at TNM stage III (HR = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.02–0.08, P < 0.05), surgical treatment (HR = 1.53, 95% CI (1.15–2.02), P = 0.003), and comprehensive treatment (HR = 0.27 95% CI (0.08–0.92), P = 0.036), respectively. Similarly, the results showed the increased LC‐3 expression in CRC was related to OS in multivariate analyses (HR = 0.44, 95% CI (0.34–0.57), P < 0.05), stages (HR = 0.51, 95% CI (0.35–0.74), P < 0.05), and comprehensive treatment (HR = 0.44, 95% CI (0.34–0.57), P < 0.05). Conclusions. Autophagy‐related proteins of LC‐3 might be an important marker of CRC progression. However, since the number of the original studies was limited, more well‐designed, large‐scale, high‐quality studies are warranted to provide more convincing and reliable information.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".