MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402204578 · doi:10.1002/hsr2.70044

Endocan as a biomarker for acute respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2024· review· en· W4402204578 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Hossein Behnoush, Amirmohammad Khalaji, Hoomaan Ghasemi, Ghazaal Alavi Tabatabaei, Amirsaeed Samavarchitehrani, Zahra Vaziri, Morvarid Najafi, Mitra Norouzi, Elina Ghondaghsaz, Elahe Amini, Alexandre Gaudet

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Science Reports · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicInflammation biomarkers and pathways
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsARDSMedicineMeta-analysisConfidence intervalBiomarkerInternal medicineStrictly standardized mean differenceAcute respiratory distressGastroenterologyLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and Aims Endocan is a marker of endothelial damage. Data regarding the association of this proteoglycan and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is discrepant. Hence, this study sought to investigate the possible correlation between serum/plasma endocan concentration and ARDS. Methods A systematic review and meta‐analysis of international online databases was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, and Web of Science were searched in March 2023, with the leading search terms being “ARDS” OR “respiratory distress” AND “endocan” and other associated terms. Studies that measured endocan levels in patients with ARDS and compared it with non‐ARDS controls or within different severities of ARDS were included. We performed a random‐effect meta‐analysis for pooling the differences using standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results We included 14 studies involving 1,058 patients. Those developing ARDS had significantly higher levels of endocan compared to those without ARDS (SMD: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.10–0.84, p = 0.01). Our meta‐analysis of three studies found that endocan levels in ARDS nonsurvivors were significantly higher than in survivors (SMD: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.02–0.60, p = 0.03). Three studies investigated endocan levels in different severities of ARDS. Only one of these studies reported significantly higher endocan levels in patients with worsening acute respiratory failure at Day 15. The other two reported no significant association between ARDS severity and circulating endocan levels. Conclusion Blood endocan levels were significantly higher in patients with ARDS than those without. Additionally, among patients with ARDS, blood endocan values were significantly elevated in nonsurvivors compared to survivors. These findings could help researchers design future studies and solidify these findings and finally, clinicians to take advantage of measuring endocan in clinical settings for assessment of patients with ARDS.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.037
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Science ReportsSame topicInflammation biomarkers and pathwaysFrench-language works237,207