Prognostic and clinical significance of modified glasgow prognostic score in pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of 4,629 patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we evaluated the association of modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) with prognosis in pancreatic cancer (PC) by performing a meta-analysis. Potentially eligible studies were shortlisted by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. A total of 4,629 patients with PC from 25 studies were finally included in this meta-analysis. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model or fixed-effect model according to heterogeneity. We pooled the hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to estimate the association between mGPS and overall survival (OS). The results showed that elevated mGPS correlated with poor OS in patients with PC (HR=1.92, 95% CI=1.60-2.30, p<0.002). In addition, subgroup analysis indicated that increased mGPS remained a significant prognostic factor irrespective of the study design, region, disease status, treatment, survival analysis, cancer type, study center, or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) score (all p<0.05). There was a significant correlation between higher mGPS and male gender (Odds ratio [OR]=1.30, 95% CI=1.01-1.67, p=0.038). Elevated pretreatment mGPS is a marker of poor prognosis in patients with PC. As an easily available and cost-effective inflammatory parameter, mGPS can serve as a promising tool for prognostication in PC.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it