MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289013997 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000029406

Prognostic significance of long noncoding RNA HOTAIR in hepatocellular carcinoma: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· article· en· W4289013997 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lei Feng, Wenqing Liu, Yunhuo Lv

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHOTAIRMedicineMeta-analysisHazard ratioLong non-coding RNACochrane LibraryConfidence intervalOncologyOdds ratioPublication biasInternal medicineHepatocellular carcinomaSystematic reviewMEDLINEBioinformaticsRNAGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Homeobox transcript antisense intergenic RNA (HOTAIR), a long noncoding RNA, has been reported to associate with the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in several studies, however, the definite conclusion has not been obtained for conflicting results across different studies. The aim of this study is to determine the association of HOTAIR expression with overall survival, progression-free survival, and clinical features in HCC. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase will be comprehensively searched to seek the relevant studies. The studies meeting the inclusion criteria will be included into this systematic review and meta-analysis. A combination of hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval is used to estimate the impact of HOTAIR expression on the overall survival and progression-free survival in HCC. The relationship between HOTAIR expression and clinical features of HCC is evaluated using the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval. The study quality is evaluated with the "risk of bias assessment" tool in Cochrane System Assessment Manual or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The subgroup analysis, publication bias, and sensitivity analysis are performed. RESULTS: This study provides a strict and classic protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prognostic significance of HOTAIR expression in HCC. The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis may provide a novel diagnostic indicator and potential therapeutic target of HCC. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is only a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis, and all data used in this study is acquired through published studies. Therefore, the ethical review is not needed for this study. REGISTRATION NUMBER: INPLASY202230050.

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)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.128
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.128
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.027
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.004

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicCancer-related molecular mechanisms researchFrench-language works237,207