MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Prognostic Value of Cancer Stem Cell Markers in Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021· review· en· W4200029478 on OpenAlex
Moh Nailul Fahmi, Inge Nandya Hertapanndika, Fitriyadi Kusuma

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

VenueAsian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Cells and Metastasis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitas Gadjah MadaUniversitas Indonesia
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisInternal medicineCochrane LibraryOncologySOX2CD44Cervical cancerCancerCancer stem cellCellBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Prognostic biomarkers in cervical cancer are widely investigated, including cancer stem cell (CSC) markers. However, their significance remains uncertain. This study aimed to determine the role of cervical cancer stem cell (CCSC) markers for survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42021237072) of studies reporting CCSC markers as the prognostic predictor based on PRISMA guidelines. We included English articles investigating associations of CCSCs expression in tissue tumor with overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) from PubMed, EBSCO, and The Cochrane Library databases. The quality of studies was analyzed based on Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. RESULTS: From 413 publications, after study selection with inclusion and exclusion criteria, 22 studies were included. High expressions of CCSC markers were associated with poor OS and DFS (HR= 1.05, 95% CI: 1.03 - 1.07, P <0.0001; HR= 1.31, 95% CI: 1.09 - 1.17, P <0.00001; respectively). Sub-analysis of individual CCSC markers indicated significant correlations between CD44 (HR= 1.14, 95% CI: 1.07 - 1.22, P 0.0001), SOX2 (HR= 1.58, 95% CI: 1.17 - 2.14, P 0.003), OCT4 (HR= 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01 - 1.06, P 0.008), ALDH1 (HR= 1.36, 95% CI: 1.13 - 1.64, P 0.001), and CD49f (HR= 3.02, 95% CI: 1.37 - 6.64, P 0.006) with worse OS; OCT4 (HR= 1.14, 95% CI 1.06 - 1.22, P 0.0003), SOX2 (HR= 1.11, 95% CI: 1.06 - 1.16, P <0.0001), and ALDH1 (HR= 1.22, 95% CI: 1.10 - 1.35, P 0.0002) with poor DFS. We did not conduct a meta-analysis for MSI-1 and CK17 because only one study investigated those markers. CONCLUSION: Expressions of OCT4, SOX2, and ALDH1 were associated with poor OS and DFS in cervical cancer tissue. These markers might have potential roles as prognostic biomarkers to predict unfavorable survival.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.320 · 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