Prognostic value of human leukocyte antigen G (HLA-G) expression in solid tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e14639 Background: Identification of modulators of the immune response with inhibitory properties that could be susceptible for therapeutic intervention is a key goal in cancer research. An example is the human leukocyte antigen G (HLA-G), a nonclassical major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I molecule, involved in cancer progression. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the role of HLA-G expression and outcome in solid tumors. A total of 25 studies met the inclusion criteria comprising data from 4871 patients reporting overall survival (OS) outcomes, and 961 patients, in 5 studies, for disease free survival (DFS). This study was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. Results: HLA-G expression was associated with worse OS (HR 2.09, 95% CI = 1.67 to 2.63; P < .001), that was higher in gastric (HR = 3.40; 95% CI = 1.64 to 7.03), pancreatic (HR = 1.72; 95% CI = 0.79 to 3.74) and colorectal (HR = 1.55; 95% CI = 1.16 to 2.07) cancer. No significant differences were observed between the most commonly utilized antibody (4H84) and other methods of detection. HLA-G expression was associated with DFS which approached but did not meet statistical significance. Conclusions: We describe the first meta-analysis associating HLA-G expression and worse survival in a variety of solid 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.037 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".