MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280626085 · doi:10.3389/fphar.2022.850750

Survival Benefit of Metformin as an Adjuvant Treatment for Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4280626085 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yu Jiao, Dongjuan Liu, Yi Sun, Zitong Chen, Sai Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pharmacology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShenyang Young and Middle-aged Science and Technology Innovation Talent Support ProgramNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineMetforminHazard ratioInternal medicineSubgroup analysisMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryConfidence intervalHead and neck cancerOncologyCancerInsulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Aims: The relationship between the efficacy of metformin and the prognosis of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) was still unclear. This study aims to clarify the prognostic value of metformin treatment using meta-analysis. Methods: Studies related to HNC prognosis and metformin were searched in Cochrane Library, Embase, LILACS, MEDLINE and PubMed databases. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the association between metformin therapy and the prognosis of HNC on overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) and whether article quality, comorbidities, age, region or smoking had an influence on the prognosis of metformin treatment. Pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were analyzed to assess the effect. Results: Eleven eligible studies involving 14,694 participants were included. Metformin increased the OS (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.76–0.99), but failed on DFS (HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.40–1.09) or DSS (HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.41–1.14) in HNC patients. Subgroup analysis showed metformin was associated with improved OS (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.49–0.88), DFS (HR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.26–0.92) and DSS (HR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.22–0.65) in studies with higher Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) scores. Subgroup analysis of age indicated that patients younger than 65 years (OS, HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49–0.92) were more likely to benefit from metformin treatment. Subgroup analysis of comorbidities showed metformin significantly improved patient outcomes in studies without adjusted for comorbidities (OS, HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.51–0.85; DSS, HR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.22–0.65), but not in studies that adjusted for comorbidities. Conclusions: Metformin improved the prognosis of HNC patients as an adjuvant therapy, especially in those with higher NOS scores. Age and comorbidities of HNC patients influenced the therapeutic effect of metformin. Further well-conducted investigations are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.039
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PharmacologySame topicMetabolism, Diabetes, and CancerFrench-language works237,207