Predictive value of pretreatment PD-L1 expression in EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the predictive value of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs). METHODS: We conducted a systemic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 1 January 2000 to 30 August 2020, to identify related studies. We combined the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to assess the correlation of PD-L1 expression with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We assessed the quality of the included studies by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). We performed subgroup analyses based on immunohistochemistry (IHC) scoring system, IHC antibodies, sample size, countries, and survival analysis mode. Sensitivity analysis and evaluation of publication bias were also performed. RESULTS: Twelve studies including 991 patients met the criteria. The mean NOS score was 7.42 ± 1.19. Patients with high PD-L1 expression was associated with poorer PFS (HR = 1.90; 95% CI = 1.16-3.10; P = 0.011), while there was no association between PD-L1 expression and OS (HR = 1.19; 95% CI = 0.99-1.43; P = 0.070). Subgroup analysis prompted IHC scoring systems, IHC antibodies, and sample size have important effects on heterogeneity. The pooled results were robust according to the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The result of this meta-analysis suggested that PD-L1 expression might be a predictive biomarker for EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer treated with EGFR-TKIs.
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 | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.055 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".