Dietary folate and vitamin B<sub>6</sub> are not associated with p53 mutations in esophageal adenocarcinoma
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies have suggested an association between dietary folate, and related B-vitamins, and risk for cancer, potentially mediated by the p53 tumor suppressor gene. The aim of this study was to explore the effect of dietary folate and vitamin B(6) intake on p53 in the molecular pathogenesis of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EADC). For each participant, a structured questionnaire was used to obtain detailed sociodemographic and lifestyle risk factors, including diet, from which folate and vitamin B(6) intake were calculated. Risks for p53 mutations, p53 mutations at CpG sites, and p53 protein overexpression among EADC cases (n = 54) were calculated using logistic regression with dietary folate and vitamin B(6) intake as predictive variables, adjusting for age, gender, smoking, and alcohol consumption. No significant differences were found for patients with EADC who had p53 mutations (n = 21) compared with patients with wild-type p53 (n = 33) with respect to selected clinicopathologic variables (age, gender, tumor grade, stage, alcohol, or tobacco consumption) and dietary intake of folate or vitamin B(6). No statistically significant associations were seen between dietary folate and vitamin B(6) intake (highest vs. lowest quartiles) and p53 mutations, p53 mutations at CpG sites (n = 12), and p53 protein overexpression (n = 17). We conclude that dietary intake of folate and vitamin B(6) do not appear to have an effect on p53, suggesting alternative molecular mechanisms underlying esophageal adenocarcinogenesis.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it