Prognostic value of the controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The significance of the controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score in predicting the prognostic outcomes of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has been widely explored, with conflicting results. Therefore, the present meta-analysis aimed to identify the prognostic significance of the CONUT in DLBCL by aggregating current evidence. METHODS: The Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, CNKI and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles from inception to October 15, 2024. The prognostic value of CONUT for DLBCL was analyzed by determining the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to analyze study quality. RESULTS: Eight studies including 2687 cases were included in this work. The NOS scores of these studies were 7-9 (median, 8), demonstrating high quality. Our analyses revealed that an elevated CONUT score significantly predicted poor overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.63, 95%CI = 1.29-2.05, p < 0.001) and inferior progression-free survival (PFS) (HR=1.22, 95%CI = 1.12-1.33, p < 0.001) in patients with DLBCL. Further, the elevated CONUT score showed a significant correlation with the following clinicopathological factors in DLBCL: Ann Arbor stage III-IV, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) of 2-4, presence of extranodal disease, ≥high intermediate National Comprehensive Cancer Network International Prognostic Index (NCCN IPI), presence of B symptoms, elevated lactose dehydrogenase (LDH) levels, and presence of bone marrow infiltration. CONCLUSIONS: An increased CONUT score was dramatically associated with poor OS and PFS in patients with DLBCL, as well as with clinicopathological characteristics representing DLBCL tumor development.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".