MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413824478 · doi:10.3390/nu17172820

Zinc Status and Occurrence of Thyroid Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4413824478 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aline Alves Soares, Yasmin Guerreiro Nagashima, Grasiela Piuvezam, Camila Xavier Alves, Kleyton Santos de Medeiros, Márcia Marília Gomes Dantas Lopes, José Brandão‐Neto

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicTrace Elements in Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
KeywordsThyroid cancerMeta-analysisCancerMedicineThyroidOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objective: Thyroid cancer (TC) represents the most common group of endocrine tumors, and its incidence has increased over the last four decades. The imbalance of trace elements, such as zinc (Zn), has been investigated due to the thyroid’s sensitivity to these elements. Zn is essential for thyroid hormone action and may be involved in the pathogenesis of TC. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to contribute to the discussion on the association between low serum Zn concentrations and the occurrence of TC. Materials and Methods: The search was carried out in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, LILACS and Web of Science databases, including observational studies published until December 2024. The primary outcome was low serum Zn concentration and the occurrence of TC. Three independent reviewers selected the studies and extracted the data from the original publications. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Data analysis was performed using R software (V.4.3.1), and heterogeneity was calculated using the I2 statistic, with results based on random effects models. Results: A total of 10 studies (n = 7 case–control and n = 3 cross-sectional) with sample sizes ranging from 44 to 294 individuals were included. The results indicated that serum Zn levels were not significantly lower in patients with TC compared with healthy controls (mean difference: −251.77; 95% confidence interval: −699.09, 195.54; I2 = 100%, very low certainty). Conclusions: Further investigations, including rigorously designed observational studies with representative samples and improved control of potential confounding variables are indispensable.

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)0.009
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.027
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicTrace Elements in HealthFrench-language works237,207