MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394951295 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000037834

Prognostic impact of CD68+ tumor-associated macrophages in hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4394951295 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Danwen Jin, Liyong Qian, Ze Yu, Jinliang Dong

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune cells in cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHepatocellular carcinomaMeta-analysisCD68OncologyInternal medicineCarcinomaImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Evidence from clinical research suggests that the tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) were associated with prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of the present meta-analysis was to conduct a qualitative analysis to explore the prognostic value of CD68 + TAMs in HCC. METHODS: This study conducted a systematic search in Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Internet from inception of the databases to November 2023. The hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated employing fixed-effect or random-effect models depending on the heterogeneity of the included trials. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the risk of prejudice. RESULTS: We analyzed 4362 HCC patients. The present research indicated that the expression levels Of CD68 + TAMs were significantly associated with overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.30-1.84) and disease-free survival (DFS) (HR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.17-1.78). Subgroup analysis based on cutoff values showed that the "Median" subgroup showed a pooled HR of 1.66 with a 95% CI ranging from 1.32 to 2.08, which was slightly higher than the "Others" subgroup that exhibited a pooled HR of 1.40 and a 95% CI of 1.07 to 1.84. The "PT" subgroup had the highest pooled HR of 1.68 (95% CI: 1.19-2.37), indicating a worse OS compared to the "IT" (pooled HR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.13-2.01) and "Mix" (pooled HR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.03-2.26) subgroups. Moreover, in the sample size-based analysis, studies with more than 100 samples (>100) exhibited a higher pooled HR of 1.57 (95% CI: 1.28 to 1.93) compared to studies with fewer than 100 samples (<100), which had a pooled HR of 1.45 (95% CI: 1.00-2.10). CONCLUSIONS: The analysis suggests that CD68 + TAMs were significantly associated with unfavorable OS and DFS in HCC patients, and may be served as a promising prognostic biomarker in HCC. However, more large-scale trials are needed to study the clinical value of TAMs in HCC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.049
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicImmune cells in cancerFrench-language works237,207