Prognostic significance of ING3 expression in patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: It has been reported that ING3 inhibits the progression of various cancers. However, some studies have shown that it promotes the development of prostate cancer. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether ING3 expression is associated with the prognosis of patients with cancer. Materials and methods: PubMed, Cochrane Database, Embase, Medline, ScienceDirect, Scopus and Web of Science were searched until September 2022. The hazard ratio (HR)/odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated using Stata 17 software. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to assess the risk of bias. Result: Seven studies involving 2371 patients with five types of cancer were included. The results showed that high expression of ING3 was negatively associated with a more advanced TNM stage (III-IV vs. I-II) (OR=0.61, 95% CI: 0.43-0.86), lymph node metastasis (OR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.49-0.90) and disease-free survival (HR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.37-0.88). However, ING3 expression was not associated with overall survival (HR=0.77, 95% CI: 0.41-1.12), tumor size (OR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.33-1.37), tumor differentiation (OR=0.86, 95% CI: 0.36-2.09) and gender (OR=1.14, 95% CI: 0.78-1.66). Conclusion: This study showed that the expression of ING3 was associated with better prognosis, suggesting that ING3 may be a potential biomarker for cancer prognosis. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier (CRD42022306354).
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".