NK cell infiltration is associated with improved overall survival in solid cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The immune landscape of a tumor is highly connected to patient prognosis and response to treatment, but little is known about how natural killer (NK) cells predict overall survival (OS) among patients with solid tumors. We present the first meta-analysis on NK cell infiltration into solid tumors as a prognostic indicator for OS, considering cancer types independently, and together. Samples were collected from 1973 to 2016 with results published between 1989 and 2020. From 53 studies, we found that NK cell infiltration corresponds with decreased risk of death (HR=0.34, 95% CI: 0.26-0.46; p<0.0001). Among studies that investigated the prognostic potential of NK cells in specific regions of the tumor, intraepithelial infiltration was better predictive of OS than NK infiltration in the tumor-adjacent stroma. Generally, NK cell infiltration is lower in advanced-stage and lower-grade tumors; nevertheless, it remains prognostically beneficial. This meta-analysis highlights an important prognostic role of NK cells in solid tumors, but exposes that few studies have considered the contributions of NK cells. Toward NK cell-based immunotherapies, it will be important to understand the conditions under which NK cells can be effective agents of tumor control.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".