The prognostic role of p53 mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: P53 is one of the most frequently mutated genes in colorectal cancer (CRC). The present study was undertaken to provide a solid estimate of the prognostic value of p53 mutations in metastatic CRC patients. METHODS: test. RESULTS: Nine articles met the eligibility criteria and went to the final analysis. Sample size ranged from 51 to 1043 patients. All studies were retrospective. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale score was > 6 in all studies, QUIPS risk of bias was low in 6, moderate in 3 studies. Only three studies analysed the entire p53 gene coding region. The DNA sequencing technological platforms varied from Sanger to NGS sequencing techniques. The p53 mutational frequencies ranged from 35.0 % to 73.0 %. A strong association (p < 0.0001) emerged between p53 alteration and left-sided CRC. The final pooled HR (p53 mutated vs p53 wild-type tumors) for overall survival was 1.30 (95 % CI: 0.75-2.25) at random-effects model. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence does not support a prognostic role for p53 in metastatic CRC patients. Prospective studies, with larger sample sizes and consistent and harmonized methodology, are needed to explore the prognostic role of p53 in metastatic CRC patients.
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 | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".