MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2098068164 · doi:10.1038/ncomms5051

2q36.3 is associated with prognosis for oestrogen receptor-negative breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy

2014· article· en· W2098068164 on OpenAlexafffund
Jingmei Li, Linda S. Lindström, Jia Nee Foo, Sajjad Rafiq, Marjanka K. Schmidt, Paul D.P. Pharoah, Kyriaki Michailidou, Joe Dennis, Manjeet K. Bolla, Qin Wang, Laura van ‘t Veer, Sten Cornelissen, Emiel J. Rutgers, Melissa C. Southey, Carmel Apicella, Gillian S. Dite, John L. Hopper, Peter A. Fasching, Lothar Haeberle, Arif B. Ekici, Matthias W. Beckmann, Carl Blomqvist, Taru Muranen, Kristiina Aittomäki, Annika Lindblom, Sara Margolin, Veli-Matti Kosma, Jaana M. Hartikainen, Vesa Kataja, Georgia Chenevix‐Trench, kConFab Investigators, Kelly‐Anne Phillips, Sue-Anne McLachlan, Diether Lambrechts, Bernard Thienpont, Ann Smeets, Hans Wildiers, Jenny Chang‐Claude, Dieter Flesch‐Janys, Petra Seibold, Anja Rudolph, Graham G. Giles, Laura Baglietto, Gianluca Severi, Christopher A. Haiman, Brian E. Henderson, Fredrick R. Schumacher, Loı̈c Le Marchand, Vessela N. Kristensen, Grethe I.G. Alnæs, Anne‐Lise Børresen‐Dale, Silje Nord, Robert Winqvist, Katri Pylkäs, Arja Jukkola‐Vuorinen, Mervi Grip, Irene L. Andrulis, Julia A. Knight, Gord Glendon, Sandrine Tchatchou, Peter Devilee, Robert A.E.M. Tollenaar, Caroline Seynaeve, Maartje J. Hooning, Mieke Kriege, Antoinette Hollestelle, Ans van den Ouweland, Yi Li, Ute Hamann, Diana Torres, Hans Ulrich Ulmer, Thomas Rüdiger, Chen‐Yang Shen, Chia-Ni Hsiung, Pei-Ei Wu, Shou-Tung Chen, Soo‐Hwang Teo, Nur Aishah Mohd Taib, Cheng Har Yip, Gwo Fuang Ho, Keitaro Matsuo, Hidemi Ito, Hiroji Iwata, Kazuo Tajima, Daehee Kang, Ji‐Yeob Choi, Sue K. Park, Keun-Young Yoo, Tom Maishman, William Tapper, Alison M. Dunning, Mitul Shah, Robert Luben, Judith Brown, Chiea Chuen Khor, Heli Nevanlinna, Douglas F. Easton, Keith Humphreys, Jianjun Liu, Per Hall, Kamila Czene

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
FundersDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los AngelesNational Cancer InstituteMedisinske fakultet, Universitetet i OsloInstitute of Biomedical Sciences, Academia SinicaMedical Research CouncilUniversity of California, San FranciscoNational Institutes of HealthAkershus UniversitetssykehusFakultet Medicinskih Nauka, Univerziteta U KragujevcuChanghua Christian HospitalChina Medical UniversityQIMR Berghofer Medical Research InstituteNorges ForskningsrådUniversitetet i OsloNational Breast Cancer FoundationSeoul National UniversityGenome Institute of SingaporeLeids Universitair Medisch CentrumNational Health and Medical Research CouncilOulun YliopistoUniversiti MalayaVetenskapsrådetSt Vincent's Hospital MelbourneAcademia SinicaKuopion Yliopistollinen SairaalaKarolinska InstitutetBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungOvarian Cancer Research FundMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadKementerian Sains, Teknologi dan InovasiDeutsche KrebshilfeUniversity of TorontoKing's College LondonAcademy of FinlandCancer Council VictoriaUniversity of MelbourneStockholms Läns LandstingNational Science CouncilMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e InovaçãoUniversiteit LeidenCancer AustraliaCancer Research InstituteAgency for Science, Technology and ResearchKWF KankerbestrijdingUniversity of Southern CaliforniaNational University of SingaporeCancer Research UKCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of SouthamptonBiocenter, University of OuluNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation TrustDeutsches KrebsforschungszentrumHelsingin ja Uudenmaan SairaanhoitopiiriBreast Cancer Research FoundationUniversity of CambridgeCollege of Medicine, Seoul National UniversitySusan G. Komen for the CureTaiwan BiobankItä-Suomen YliopistoBreast Cancer CampaignNIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer ResearchHelsingin YliopistoErasmus Universitair Medisch Centrum RotterdamEuropean CommissionCancerfonden
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineOncologySingle-nucleotide polymorphismHazard ratioInternal medicineCancerGenotypingPopulationGenome-wide association studyBiologyGenotypeGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large population-based registry studies have shown that breast cancer prognosis is inherited. Here we analyse single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of genes implicated in human immunology and inflammation as candidates for prognostic markers of breast cancer survival involving 1,804 oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative patients treated with chemotherapy (279 events) from 14 European studies in a prior large-scale genotyping experiment, which is part of the Collaborative Oncological Gene-environment Study (COGS) initiative. We carry out replication using Asian COGS samples (n=522, 53 events) and the Prospective Study of Outcomes in Sporadic versus Hereditary breast cancer (POSH) study (n=315, 108 events). Rs4458204_A near CCL20 (2q36.3) is found to be associated with breast cancer-specific death at a genome-wide significant level (n=2,641, 440 events, combined allelic hazard ratio (HR)=1.81 (1.49–2.19); P for trend=1.90 × 10−9). Such survival-associated variants can represent ideal targets for tailored therapeutics, and may also enhance our current prognostic prediction capabilities. Studies have shown that breast cancer prognosis is hereditary. Here the authors show that a genetic variant in CCL20, a chemokine ligand involved in immune response, is significantly associated with breast cancer survival and may therefore represent an important therapeutic or prognostic target.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature Communications→Same topicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers→French-language works237,207→