What factors may affect the effect of ICI-combined therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma? A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The prognostic factors of ICI-including combined therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma were analyzed by systematic review. METHOD: We searched Web of Science, Cochrane, PubMed, CNKI, Wanfang and other databases for randomized controlled trials and clinical trials of combination therapy including ICIs in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The search time was from the establishment of the database to September 2023. Data were extracted and evaluated with RevMan 5.4 software. RESULTS: Six studies were included, including 4723 patients. The results showed that ① in terms of progression-free survival, the factors of age < 65 years old, male sex, Canada and Western Europe, nephrectomy, different IMDC class, number of organs with metastases and PD-L1 expression ≥ 1% significantly prolonged PFS in patients with metastatic cancer treated by combination therapy including ICIs; ② in terms of overall survival rate, the factors of age < 65 years old, female sex, nephrectomy, different IMDC class and PD-L1 expression ≥ 1% significantly prolonged the OS of patients with metastatic cancer treated by combination therapy including ICIs. CONCLUSIONS: Age, sex, region, nephrectomy, different IMDC class, number of organs with metastases and PD-L1 expression are independent factors influencing the efficacy of combination therapy including ICIs in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Systematic evaluation of baseline indicators of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma to predict clinical benefits can effectively improve the benefit rate of 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".