MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214810715 · doi:10.1155/2021/5440572

Prognostic Role of TIGIT Expression in Patients with Solid Tumors: A Meta-Analysis

2021· review· en· W3214810715 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Immunology Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTIGITMeta-analysisCancer researchOncologyInternal medicineExpression (computer science)MedicineComputer scienceImmunotherapyCancerProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. T cell immunoglobulin and ITIM domain (TIGIT) is a recently identified immunosuppressive receptor. The expression levels of TIGIT affect the prognosis of patients with solid tumors. To fully comprehend the role of TIGIT on the prognosis of patients with solid tumors, we conducted a meta-analysis. Methods. We performed an online search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science (WOS), and MEDLINE databases for literature published till March 31, 2021. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the literature, and Stata 16.0 and Engauge Digitizer 4.1 software were used for data analysis. Results. Our literature search identified eight papers comprising 1426 patients with solid tumors. Increased expression of TIGIT was associated with poor prognosis. High expression of TIGIT was a risk factor for overall survival (OS) { <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mtext>hazard</a:mtext> <a:mtext> </a:mtext> <a:mtext>ratio</a:mtext> <a:mtext> </a:mtext> <a:mfenced open="(" close=")"> <a:mrow> <a:mtext>HR</a:mtext> </a:mrow> </a:mfenced> <a:mo>=</a:mo> <a:mn>1.66</a:mn> </a:math> , 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.26, 2.20], <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <e:mi>P</e:mi> <e:mo>&lt;</e:mo> <e:mn>0.001</e:mn> </e:math> } and progression-free survival (PFS) ( <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <g:mtext>HR</g:mtext> <g:mo>=</g:mo> <g:mn>1.44</g:mn> </g:math> , 95% CI [1.15, 1.81], <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"> <i:mi>P</i:mi> <i:mo>=</i:mo> <i:mn>0.01</i:mn> </i:math> ). We performed subgroup analysis to explore the source of heterogeneity, colorectal cancer ( <k:math xmlns:k="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"> <k:mtext>HR</k:mtext> <k:mo>=</k:mo> <k:mn>2.07</k:mn> </k:math> , 95% CI [0.23, 18.82], <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M6"> <m:mi>P</m:mi> <m:mo>=</m:mo> <m:mn>0.518</m:mn> </m:math> ), lung cancer ( <o:math xmlns:o="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M7"> <o:mtext>HR</o:mtext> <o:mo>=</o:mo> <o:mn>1.29</o:mn> </o:math> , 95% CI [0.96, 1.72], <q:math xmlns:q="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M8"> <q:mi>P</q:mi> <q:mo>=</q:mo> <q:mn>0.094</q:mn> </q:math> ), esophageal cancer ( <s:math xmlns:s="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M9"> <s:mtext>HR</s:mtext> <s:mo>=</s:mo> <s:mn>1.70</s:mn> </s:math> , 95% CI [1.20, 2.40], <u:math xmlns:u="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M10"> <u:mi>P</u:mi> <u:mo>=</u:mo> <u:mn>0.003</u:mn> </u:math> ), and other cancers ( <w:math xmlns:w="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M11"> <w:mtext>HR</w:mtext> <w:mo>=</w:mo> <w:mn>1.83</w:mn> </w:math> , 95% CI [1.25, 2.68], <y:math xmlns:y="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M12"> <y:mi>P</y:mi> <y:mo>=</y:mo> <y:mn>0.002</y:mn> </y:math> ). In addition to cancer type, expression location, sample size, and different statistical analysis methods are also considered the possible causes of heterogeneity between studies. Funnel plots suggested no publication bias for OS ( <ab:math xmlns:ab="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M13"> <ab:mi>P</ab:mi> <ab:mo>=</ab:mo> <ab:mn>0.902</ab:mn> </ab:math> ), and Egger’s test supported this conclusion ( <cb:math xmlns:cb="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M14"> <cb:mi>P</cb:mi> <cb:mo>=</cb:mo> <cb:mn>0.537</cb:mn> </cb:math> ). Conclusion. TIGIT expression was associated with OS and PFS in patients with solid tumors. Patients with elevated TIGIT expression have a shorter OS and PFS, and TIGIT expression could be a novel biomarker for prognosis prediction and a valuable therapeutic target for solid tumors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it