MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285611005 · doi:10.1177/10732748221106268

Clinical Significance of Pim-1 in Human Cancers: A Meta-analysis of Association with Prognosis and Clinicopathological Characteristics

2022· review· en· W4285611005 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lin Lai, Xinyu Chen, Ge Tian, Renba Liang, Xishan Chen, Yuelan Qin, Kai-Hua Chen, Xiaodong Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Control · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Mechanisms and Therapy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisInternal medicineSubgroup analysisOncologyCochrane LibraryConfidence intervalHazard ratioPublication biasMetastasisCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Pim-1 is overexpressed in cancer tissues and plays a vital role in carcinogenesis. However, its clinical significance in cancers is not fully verified by meta-analysis, especially in relation to prognosis and clinicopathological features. Methods Four databases, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, were searched. Literature screening and data extraction according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of the included literatures was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the data analysis was performed using STATA and Review Manager software. Results 15 articles were finally included for meta-analysis, involving 1651 patients. Effect-size pooling analysis showed that high Pim-1 was related to poor overall survival (OS) (HR 1.68 [95% CI 1.17-2.40], P = .004) and disease-free survival (DFS) (HR 2.15 [95 %CI 1.15-4.01], P = .000). Subgroup analysis indicated that the detection techniques of Pim-1 were the main sources of heterogeneity, and 2 literatures using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) for Pim-1mRNA had high homogeneity (I 2 = .0%, P = .321) in OS. Another 13 studies that applied immunohistochemistry (IHC) for Pim-1 protein had significant heterogeneity (I 2 =82.2%, P = .000; I 2 =92%, P = .000) in OS and DFS, respectively, and further analysis demonstrated that ethnicity, sample size, and histopathological origin were considered to be the main factors affecting their heterogeneity. In addition, high Pim-1 was associated with lymph node metastasis (OR 1.40 [95% CI 1.02-1.92], P = .04), distant metastasis (OR 2.69 [95%CI 1.67-4.35], P < .0001), and clinical stage III-IV (OR .7 [95% CI .50-.96, P = .03). Sensitivity analysis suggested that the pooled results of each effect-size were stable and reliable, and there was no significant publication bias ( P = .138) in all included articles. Conclusion High Pim-1 can not only predict poor OS and DFS of cancer, but also help to infer the malignant clinical characteristics of tumor metastasis. Pim-1 may be a potential and promising biomarker for early diagnosis, prognostic analysis and targeted therapy of 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.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.041
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ControlSame topicCancer Mechanisms and TherapyFrench-language works237,207