Prognostic and Predictive Role of JWA and XRCC1 Expressions in Gastric Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the expression pattern and significance of DNA repair genes JWA and X-ray repair cross complement group 1 (XRCC1) in gastric cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Expressions of JWA and XRCC1 were assessed by immunohistochemistry in a training cohort and they went into a second testing cohort and finally to a validating cohort. Prognostic and predictive role of JWA and XRCC1 expression status in cases treated with surgery alone or combined with adjuvant chemotherapy was evaluated, respectively. RESULTS: JWA and XRCC1 protein levels were significantly downregulated in gastric cancer lesions compared with adjacent noncancerous tissues. Low tumoral JWA or XRCC1 expression significantly correlated with shorter overall survival (OS), as well as with clinicopathologic characteristics in patients without adjuvant treatment. Multivariate regression analysis showed that low JWA and XRCC1 expressions, separately and together, were independent negative markers of OS. Adjuvant fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin (FLO) significantly improved OS compared with surgery alone (log-rank test, P = 0.01). However, this effect was evident only in the JWA or XRCC1 low expression group (HR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.26-0.73; P = 0.002, and HR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.26-0.75; P = 0.002, respectively); Adjuvant fluorouracil-leucovorin-platinol (FLP) did not improve OS, except in the patients with low JWA and XRCC1 expressions (P = 0.010 for JWA and 0.024 for XRCC1, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: JWA and XRCC1 protein expressions in tumor are novel candidate prognostic markers and predictive factors for benefit from adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy (FLO or FLP) in resectable human gastric carcinoma.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".