Prognostic value of Livin in surgical specimen and biopsy in patients with osteosarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have shown that various apoptotic related factors were closely related to osteosarcoma (OS), and the correlation between apoptotic inhibitory protein Livin and OS has also been confirmed. Despite of the abundant surveys focusing on the effects of Livin positive expression on overall survival and metastasis of OS, the results were remained obscure. Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted to explore the relationship of Livin expression in prognosis of OS. We searched CBM, Chinese VIP database, Wanfang database, CNKI, Springer, ISI Web of Knowledge, the Cochrane library, Embase and NCBI PubMed from the establishment to November 17, 2018 for the full retrieval of Livin positive expression and OS prognosis. We used Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to evaluate the quality of enrolled studies. Results: There were 10 studies involving 439 OS patients analyzed in this research. The results of meta-analysis revealed the meaningful association between positive expression of Livin and OS metastasis (OR =8.62, 95% CI: 4.08–18.21, P<0.0001), low 3-year survival rate with the pooled OR was 5.82 (95% CI: 3.34–10.13, P<0.0001). No significant publication bias or heterogeneity or were found in this meta-analysis. Conclusions: The results of the present study indicated that Livin expression was related to OS low 3-year survival rate and metastasis, which suggested that Livin may be a potential biomarker indicating poor prognosis of OS.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".