MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403894098 · doi:10.3390/ijms252111664

Are There Non-Invasive Biomarker(s) That Would Facilitate the Detection of Ovarian Torsion? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4403894098 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Meg Laura Naylor, Grace Doherty, Hannah Draper, Daniel Fletcher, Alan S. Rigby, Tolu Adedipe, Barbara‐ann Guinn

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilWellcome TrustAcademy of Medical SciencesBritish Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy
KeywordsMeta-analysisBiomarkerOvarian torsionSystematic reviewMedicineBioinformaticsComputational biologyInternal medicineBiologyPathologyMEDLINEBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ovarian torsion (OT) is a rare gynaecological emergency that requires a prompt diagnosis for optimal patient management. To determine whether there were any biomarkers suitable for the non-invasive detection of OT, two independent reviewers performed systematic searches of five literature databases (PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Cochrane, and CINAHL) from inception until October 1st, 2023. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the search included patients with OT that had quantified biomarker expression with no age, geographical location, publication date, language, or setting restrictions. Articles were excluded if OT was found incidentally, was based on qualitative analyses, or were not primary research articles. Full texts of 23 selected articles were assessed for risk of bias and quality assurance using a modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for clinical studies and SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for the assessment of pre-clinical (animal) studies. A total of 11 articles described studies on animals and all described serum biomarkers comparing results between OT versus a sham operation, a control group, or readings before and after OT. Ischaemia-modified albumhumin (IMA), serum D-dimer (s-DD), heat shock protein-70 (hsp-70), Pentraxin-3 (PTX3), and c-reactive protein (CRP) each showed the most promise, with p-values for the difference between OT and control groups achieving ≤ 0.001. In studies of humans, the biomarkers ranged from 16.4 to 92.3% sensitivity and 77–100% specificity. The most promising biomarkers for the early prediction of OT in patients included s-DD, interleukin-6 (IL-6), IMA, and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α). Signal peptide, CUB domain, and EGF-like domain-containing 1 (SCUBE1) had a high specificity at 93.3%, second only to s-DD and a positive likelihood ratio (LR) > 10. IMA was the only other biomarker that also had a positive LR > 10, making it a promising diagnostic biomarker. The studies identified by this systematic literature review each analysed small patient groups but IMA, DD, and SCUBE1 nevertheless showed promise as serum biomarkers with a pooled LR > 10. However, further well-designed studies are needed to identify and evaluate individual markers or diagnostic panels to help clinicians manage this important organ-threatening condition.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0280.042
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→