MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prognostic and Clinicopathological Significance of Centrosomal Protein 55 in Different Cancers: A Meta and Bioinformatic Analysis

2023· article· en· W4407306830 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Regulators and Homeostatic Agents/Journal of Biological Regulators & Homeostatic Agents · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisOncologyBiologyComputational biologyMedicineCancer researchPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Centrosomal protein 55 ( Cep55 ) is a mitogenic phosphoprotein that moves from the centrosome to the midbody of the cell and contributes to dislodging during late mitosis. It cooperates with the constituents of the intrasomal sorting complex, extracts the endosomal sorting complex required for transport (ESCRT) machinery, and promotes intercellular bridges contraction. Many studies have claimed an association between Cep55 expression and clinical performance prognosis. To verify this claim, a meta-analysis and bioinformatics analysis was performed to assess Cep55 prognostic and clinicopathological significance. Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine Cep55 prognostic value in neoplasms by analyzing the relationship between its expression and neoplasia patients clinico-prognosis. Methods: A meta-analysis and bioinformatics analysis was performed. Relevant studies were extracted from Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas) and GEO (Gene Expression Omnibus) databases using an appropriate search strategy. Quality of studies was evaluated by Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Weighted Assessment Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis was performed using the Stata 15.1 MP (multiprocessor) software (StataCorp company, College Station, TX, USA). Next, bioinformatics analysis was conducted to evaluate Cep55 expression in cancer patients. Cep55 expression data were retrieved from the Oncomine and GEPIA2 (Gene Expression Profiling Interactive Analysis 2) databases to compare Cep55 expression in dissimilar types of cancer and their relative health counterparts. Moreover, the association between Cep55 expression and the outcome of different carcinomas was evaluated. Results: A total of 11 studies involving 1535 cancer patients were included in the meta-analysis. Survival analysis showed that high Cep55 expression was associated with poor overall survival in patients with cancer (hazard ratio (HR): 1.58, 95% CI (confidence interval): 1.28–1.95, I 2 = 0%, p = 0.589). Bioinformatic analyses indicated that high Cep55 expression was associated with prognosis in patients with different tumors. Conclusions: Cep55 may be used as a potential prognostic biomarker for the identification of patients with tumors.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.021
Bibliometrics0.0120.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological Regulators and Homeostatic Agents/Journal of Biological Regulators & Homeostatic Agents→Same topicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics→French-language works237,207→