The prognostic value of lymph node ratio for thyroid cancer: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The prognostic value of lymph node ratio (LNR) has been proved in several cancers. However, the potential of LNR to be a prognostic factor for thyroid cancer has not been validated so far. This article evaluated the prognostic value of LNR for thyroid cancer through a meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic search was conducted for eligible publications that study the prognostic values of LNR for thyroid cancer in the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science up until October 24, 2023. The quality of the eligible studies was evaluated by The Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale of Cohort Study. The effect measure for meta-analysis was Hazard Ratio (HR). Random effect model was used to calculate the pooled HR and 95% confidence intervals. A sensitivity analysis was applied to assess the stability of the results. Subgroup analysis and a meta-regression were performed to explore the source of heterogeneity. And a funnel plot, Begg's and Egger's tests were used to evaluate publication bias. Results: A total of 15,698 patients with thyroid cancer from 24 eligible studies whose quality were relatively high were included. The pooled HR was 4.74 (95% CI:3.67-6.11; P<0.05) and a moderate heterogeneity was shown (I2 = 40.8%). The results of meta-analysis were stable according to the sensitivity analysis. Similar outcome were shown in subgroup analysis that higher LNR was associated with poorer disease-free survival (DFS). Results from meta-regression indicated that a combination of 5 factors including country, treatment, type of thyroid cancer, year and whether studies control factors in design or analysis were the origin of heterogeneity. Conclusion: Higher LNR was correlated to poorer disease free survival in thyroid cancer. LNR could be a potential prognostic indicator for thyroid cancer. More effort should be made to assess the potential of LNR to be included in the risk stratification systems for thyroid cancer. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=477135, identifier CRD42023477135.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".