MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407114012 · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2025.1465971

Prognostic value of systemic immune-inflammation index for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4407114012 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhan Chen, Yao Zhang, Wei Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Immunology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory Biomarkers in Disease Prognosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisProstatectomySubgroup analysisProstate cancerInternal medicineOncologyPublication biasConfoundingCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective The prognostic value of the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) for prostate cancer (PCa) patients receiving different treatments remains unclear. This research examined the relevance of SII in individuals undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Wanfang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) dat3 abases were used to search literature up to May 2024. The quality was evaluated with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Outcomes examined were associations between SII and overall survival (OS), biochemical recurrence-free survival (BFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Pooled analysis, Egger’s test, and sensitivity analysis were conducted using Review Manager 5.4.1 and Stata 15.1. The GRADE system was employed to evaluate and grade the evidence for each outcome. Subgroup analyses were performed for outcomes with significant heterogeneity to evaluate the possible confounders, if data were sufficient. Results Out of 101 identified studies, eight studies involving 8,267 individuals were included. Patients with higher SII had shorter overall survival (HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.31-2.71; P = 0.0006), biochemical recurrence-free survival (HR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.08-2.22; P = 0.02), and cancer-specific survival (HR: 3.63; 95% CI: 1.66-7.94; P = 0.001). The evidence for OS and CSS was rated very low-quality due to serious heterogeneity and/or imprecision. The prognostic value of SII for BFS was rated as low-quality evidence, given no serious risk observed. Subgroup analysis showed that, except for the subgroup aged >65 years (HR: 3.70; 95%CI: 0.91, 15.06, P =0.07), the prognostic value of SII for OS was not significant, but the prognostic value of SII for OS in other subgroups was still significant. Conclusions High SII was linked to shorter OS, BFS, and CSS in patients undergoing RP. However, the quality of the evidence provided by this study was low. Systematic Review Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ , identifier CRD42024558431.

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)0.028
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.034
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in ImmunologySame topicInflammatory Biomarkers in Disease PrognosisFrench-language works237,207