Circulating exosomal microRNAs as potential prognostic biomarkers in gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent reports suggested that circulating exosomal microRNAs (exomiRs) may serve as non-invasive prediction biomarkers in gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, yet their clinicopathological and prognostic values need to be more clarified. Hence, the present meta-analysis was aimed to quantitatively assess the evidence regarding the association between circulating exomiRs and prognosis in GI cancer patients. METHODS: A comprehensive search was carried out in prominent literature databases, including PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase. Odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were gathered to evaluate the strength of the association. The quality assessment was investigated through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and publication bias via Eggers' test and funnel plots. RESULTS: A total of 47 studies, comprising of 4881 patients, were considered eligible for this meta-analysis. Both up-regulated and down-regulated circulating exomiRs are significantly associated with differentiation (HR = 1.353, P = 0.015; HR = 1.504, P = 0.016), TNM stage (HR = 2.058, P < 0.001; HR = 2.745, P < 0.001), lymph node metastasis (HR = 1.527, P = 0.004; HR = 2.009, P = 0.002), distant metastasis (HR = 2.006, P < 0.001; HR = 2.799, P = 0.002), worse overall survival (OS) (HR = 2.053, P < 0.001; HR = 1.789, P = 0.001) and poorer disease/relapse/progression-free survival (DFS/RFS/PFS) (HR = 2.086, P < 0.001; HR = 1.607, P = 0.001) in GI cancer patients, respectively. In addition, subgroup analyses based on seven subcategories indicated the robustness of the association. The majority of findings were lack of publication bias except for the association between up-regulated exomiRs and OS or DFS/RFS/PFS and for the down-regulated exomiRs and TNM stage. CONCLUSION: This study supports that up- and down-regulated circulating exomiRs are associated with poorer survival outcomes and could be served as potential prognostic biomarkers in GI cancers. Given the limitations of the current findings, such as significant heterogeneity, more investigations are needed to fully clarify the exomiRs prognostic role.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".