MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233114314 · doi:10.21037/tcr.2019.06.26

Expression of HER-2 in surgical specimen and biopsy as a biomarker of metastasis in patients with osteosarcoma: a meta-analysis

2019· article· en· W4233114314 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jian Zhou, Wanchun Wang, Qian Yan, Yingquan Luo

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Cancer Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteosarcomaMedicineMetastasisBiomarkerBiopsyOncologyMeta-analysisDistant metastasisInternal medicinePathologyCancerBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Previous studies have evaluated the effect of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) expression on the metastasis of patients with osteosarcoma (OS) while the results remain conflicting. Here we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the value of HER-2 in prognosis of OS. Methods: A comprehensive search using NCBI PubMed, the Cochrane library, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, Springer, China National Knowledge Internet database (CNKI), Wanfang database, Chinese VIP database and Chinese Biological Medical Database (CBM) from inception through Aug 28, 2018 was conducted to investigate HER-2 expression and OS metastasis. We evaluated the quantity of the studies using Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS). Results: There were 15 studies with 652 OS patients involved. The results of meta-analysis showed that positive expression of HER-2 was associated with OS metastasis (OR =4.42; 95% CI, 2.91–6.71; P<0.0001). No significant heterogeneity or publication bias was observed among all studies. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that HER-2 positive expression indicates OS metastasis, while it’s needed to perform more prospective studies to confirm the prognostic value of HER-2 in patients with OS.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslational Cancer ResearchSame topicRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207