MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402321296 · doi:10.1186/s12894-024-01569-7

Relationship between NLR and penile squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4402321296 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Saghar Babadi, Matin Moallem Shahri, Sima Foroughi Nematollahi, Arnav Barpujari, Alec Clark, Brandon Lucke‐Wold, Shirin Sarejloo, Arshin Ghaedi, Aida Bazrgar, Shokoufeh Khanzadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Urology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenital Health and Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisBasal cellSystematic reviewPenile cancerMEDLINECarcinomaOncologyUrologyPenisDermatologyPathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We conducted this study to summarize the results of studies reporting the role of NLR (neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio) in PSCC (penile squamous cell carcinoma). METHODS: This meta-analysis was conducted using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and web of science up to March 10, 2023. Fourteen studies were included in the review. The NOS (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) was used to determine the quality of the included studies. This meta-analysis was conducted on the studies reporting the relationship between NLR and survival using HR (hazard ratio) and 95% CI (confidence interval). RESULTS: There was a significant association between NLR levels and the prognosis, nodal stage, and anatomical tumor stage of PSCC patients. In the meta-analysis of the association of NLR with survival, NLR level was significantly associated with lower cancer-specific survival (HR = 3.51, 95% CI = 2.07-5.98, p < 0.001) and lower disease-free survival (HR = 2.88, 95% CI = 1.60-5.20, p < 0.001). However, NLR was found to have no association with the stage, grade, location, and size of the tumor. CONCLUSION: NLR has a significant diagnostic and prognostic value in PSCC.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysislow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.033
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.032
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designMeta-analysis · Systematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Review

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 venueBMC UrologySame topicGenital Health and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207