Table_3_Prognostic value of programmed cell death ligand 1 expression in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a meta-analysis.docx
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background<p>Programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) is highly expressed in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) tissues. But there is still a dispute over the prognostic value of PD-L1 in patients with ICC. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of PD-L1 expression in patients with ICC.</p>Methods<p>We performed a meta-analysis based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Guidelines. We searched the literature from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to December 5, 2022. Hazard ratios (HR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated to analyze the overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and time to relapse. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and Egger’s test.</p>Results<p>Ten trials with 1944 cases were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that the low-PD-L1 group had a statistically significant advantage in OS (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.38–1.79, P <0.00001), RFS (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.34–1.97, P <0.00001), and time to relapse (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.25–2.05, P = 0.0002) compared with the high-PD-L1 group. High programmed cell death (PD1)levels, on the other hand, were correlated with poorer OS (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.43–2.70; P <0.0001) and RFS (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.21–2.91; P = 0.005). Multivariate analysis showed that PD-L1 could act as an independent predictor for OS (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.14–1.91; P = 0.003) and RFS (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.22–2.47; P = 0.002), and PD1 acted as an independent predictor for OS (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.15–2.38; P = 0.006).</p>Conclusion<p>This meta-analysis demonstrated that high PD-L1/PD1 expression is associated with poor survival in ICC. PD-L1/PD1 may be a valuable prognostic and predictive biomarker and potential therapeutic target in ICC.</p>Systematic review registration<p>https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022380093.</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".