MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415453393 · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvaf149.2494

SUN-292 Examining Predictive Elements Influencing Metastasis to Right Para Esophageal Lymph Nodes in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4415453393 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aman Ullah, Rabbia Haider, Muneeb Khawar, Mirza Muhammad Hadeed Khawar, M S Cheema, Aqsa Komel, Muhammad Huzaifa Ahmed Khan, Rimsha Noureen, Arshia Batool, Mujtaba Mubashir, Abdul Qadeer, Robert W. Kirchoff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetastasisEchogenicityFunnel plotLymph node metastasisLymph nodeThyroidLymphMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Disclosure: A. Ullah: None. R. Haider: None. M. Khawar: None. M. Abid: None. M. Hadeed Khawar: None. M. Shaukat: None. M. Asad Cheema: None. A. Komel: None. M. Ahmed Khan: None. R. Noureen: None. A. Batool: None. M. Mubashir: None. A. Qadeer: None. R. W. Kirchoff: None. Background: The role of dissecting the right paraesophageal lymph node (RPELN) in managing papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) remains a subject of debate. This meta-analysis examines both established and novel risk factors associated with RPELN metastasis. Methods: Relevant studies published up to December 2024 were retrieved using PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and Scopus search engines. Data were extracted and evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4, with heterogeneity assessed through the Q-test and I²-test. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the leave-one-out method, and the Egger regression test was used to generate a funnel plot for publication bias assessment. Results: Out of 2,444 articles screened, 26 studies involving 16,427 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The overall RPELN metastasis rate was 12.98% (2,133/16,427). The pooled analysis revealed significant associations between RPELN metastasis and the following factors: age under 55 years (P < 0.00001), male gender (P < 0.00001), tumor size >1 cm (P < 0.00001), multifocality (P < 0.00001), capsular invasion (P < 0.00001), vascular invasion (P < 0.00001), extra-thyroidal extension (P < 0.0001), central lymph node metastasis (P < 0.00001), lateral lymph node metastasis (P < 0.00001), Hashimoto’s thyroiditis (P = 0.002), micro-calcifications (P = 0.01), and altered echogenicity (P = 0.03). Conversely, no significant associations were observed for tumor location in the right lobe (P = 0.07), superior pole (P = 0.08), middle pole (P = 1.00), inferior pole (P = 0.28), or tumor margins (P = 0.93) (all P > 0.05). Conclusion: Factors such as age <55, male sex, tumor size >1 cm, multifocality, capsular invasion, vascular invasion, extra-thyroidal extension, central lymph node metastasis, lateral lymph node metastasis, and Hashimoto’s thyroiditis are significantly associated with RPELN metastasis. These should be carefully considered during RPELN dissection in PTC management. Presentation: Sunday, July 13, 2025

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.032
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.317 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Endocrine SocietySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207