MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396717421 · doi:10.14740/wjon1788

Intercontinental Comparison of Immunohistochemical Subtypes Among Individuals With Breast Cancer in South-East Asia and South America: A Scoping Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

2024· article· en· W4396717421 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dedy Hermansyah, Naufal Nandita Firsty, Ruth Hasian Nami Siagian, Najwa Nandita Dwinda

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerObservational studyPopulationConfidence intervalSocioeconomic statusMeta-analysisDemographyOncologyCancerInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Breast cancer (BC) remains a significant global concern, particularly among developing countries in South-East Asia (SEA) and South America (SA). The socioeconomic burdens of oncologic care in those countries were often originated from limited accessibility on attainable therapeutic options and reliability on identifying essential information of cancer cells, i.e., immunohistochemical (IHC) subtyping to determine suitable approaches. The triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is among the most aggressive category in breast malignancy, therefore, requiring more specific molecular pathway blocking to exhaust the cells. However, large-scale epidemiological investigation on its rate among BC remains unavailable to date. This study aimed to describe the prevalence of TNBC in the SEA and SA continents since it may guide the future direction of oncologic research and trials. Methods: This review focuses on observational studies from the SEA and SA continents from the last decade. Each study represents its country or cities, period of observation, population size, and the TNBC-BC rate as the main outcomes. Therefore, we may also limit the reporting bias originated from same-patient data on the specific occasions. The analysis will be derived to SEA-SA comparison, plus SEA/SA-specific session as processed in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) version 3.0. The statistical analysis will be performed in random effects model (REM) within 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: From 46 studies included in the final analysis with a total enlisted population of 34,346 unique individuals with BC, the TNBC rate was higher in the SEA compared to the SA region (19.3% vs. 15.7%; P < 0.05 in 95% CI), with the highest prevalence observed in Vietnam (22.4%) and Peru (17.8%), if it was restricted on countries with two or more studies. Interestingly, both Laos and Argentina possessed significant differences compared to other countries within their respective continents, with the highest and lowest TNBC rates (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The IHC characteristics in SEA differ from those in the SA continent as mainly represented by TNBC prevalence, possibly shaping the course of future trials in the respective region based on IHC expressivity status.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.025
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.315 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207