p16 Expression and its correlation with the clinical pathological characteristics of cervical cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Overexpression of p16 has been reported in various human tumors. However, the correlation between p16 overexpression and the clinical pathological characteristics of cervical cancer remains contentious. Therefore, this meta-analysis aims to systematically evaluate the relationship between p16 expression and the clinical pathological features of cervical cancer. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library (Central), Web of Science (SCI Expanded), and Chine databases (CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and CBM) were searched for relevant articles published between 1 January 2010 and March 01,2024. Case-control studies related to the correlation between p16 expression and cervical cancer were selected to evaluate the correlation between p16 expression and the clinicopathological features of cervical cancer patients. The software Review Man 5.4 was used for statistical and data processing, and heterogeneity tests and sensitivity analyses were performed. Literature quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The software STATA 16.0 was selected for sensitivity analysis of the included studies, and publication bias was tested via Begg’s test. Results Twenty-three eligible studies with, 1611 cervical cancer patients and 852 normal controls were included. p16 protein expression (cervical cancer patients VS normal controls) OR=74.32, 95%CI: 50.35-109.69, P<0.05; The expression of p16 protein in cervical cancer patients is associated with lymph node metastasis (metastatic lymph nodes vs. non-metastatic lymph nodes) OR=1.79, 95% CI: 1.29-2.47, P<0.05;The expression of p16 in patients with cervical cancer correlated with the degree of differentiation of the tumours (high and medium differentiation vs. low differentiation) (OR= 0.41, 95% CI: 0.30-0.56, P<0.05); the age of disease onset (age≤40 vs. age>40) (OR=0.55, Z=3.00, P=0.003<0.05), the status of choroidal infiltration in cervical cancer patients (yes vs. no) (OR=3.53, 95% CI: 1.25-10.01, P=0.02 <0.05), and tumour FIGO stage (stage I-II vs. stage III-IV) (OR=0.37, 95% CI: 0.18-0.76, P=0.0.007 <0.05), and these differences were statistically significant. p16 expression was not correlated with infiltration depth, tumour pathology type, tumour size, and these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion The p16 protein is closely related to the occurrence and development of cervical cancer and can serve as a reference indicator for the early warning and diagnosis of cervical cancer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".