Prognostic and clinicopathological role of RACK1 for cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The receptor for activated C kinase 1 (RACK1) expression is associated with clinicopathological characteristics and the prognosis of various cancers; however, the conclusions are controversial. As a result, this study aimed to explore the clinicopathological and prognostic values of RACK1 expression in patients with cancer. Methodology PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were comprehensively explored from their inception to April 20, 2023, for selecting studies on the clinicopathological and prognostic role of RACK1 in patients with cancer that met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the prognosis-predictive value of RACK1 expression, while pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were used to evaluate the correlation between RACK1 expression and the clinicopathological characteristics of patients with cancer. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results Twenty-two studies (13 on prognosis and 20 on clinicopathological characteristics) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The findings indicated that high RACK1 expression was significantly associated with poor overall survival (HR = 1.62; 95% CI, 1.13–2.33; P = 0.009; I 2 = 89%) and reversely correlated with disease-free survival/recurrence-free survival (HR = 1.87; 95% CI, 1.22–2.88; P = 0.004; I 2 = 0%). Furthermore, increased RACK1 expression was significantly associated with lymphatic invasion/N+ stage (OR = 1.74; 95% CI, 1.04–2.90; P = 0.04; I 2 = 79%) of tumors. Conclusions RACK1 may be a global predictive marker of poor prognosis in patients with cancer and unfavorable clinicopathological characteristics. However, further clinical studies are required to validate these findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".