MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101146277 · doi:10.4021/wjon261w

A Case-Control Study of TP53 R72P Polymorphism in the Breast Cancer Patients of Ethnic Kashmiri Population

2010· article· en· W2101146277 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nidda Syeed

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related Molecular Pathways
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerGenotypeMedicineOncologyInternal medicineRestriction fragment length polymorphismPopulationKashmiriGastroenterologyCancerGynecologyGeneticsGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: TP53 R72P polymorphism has been proposed as a risk factor for breast cancer and is more likely to differ among different ethnic populations. We carried out the study to determine the role of R72P polymorphism in breast cancer patients of Kashmir, an ethnic population by PCR-RFLP. METHODS: To evaluate the role of this polymorphism in our ethnic Kashmiri population, we devised our study to study its role in breast cancer patients and healthy controls. The contribution of TP53 R72P polymorphism in 130 breast cancer patients and 220 female healthy controls was assessed using a PCR-RFLP (polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism). RESULTS: We observed that women with PP genotype have increased risk for developing breast cancer. We found Pro/Pro genotype statistically significantly associated with dwelling, lymph node metastases, histopathological grade, and menopausal status. Pro/Pro genotype in cases and controls was observed and it was found that it is significantly associated with the breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that TP53 R72P polymorphism is a risk factor in breast cancer. Furthermore, these results suggest Pro72 allele is associated with higher risk for breast cancer patients. Women with PP genotype have increased risk for developing breast cancer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicCancer-related Molecular PathwaysFrench-language works237,207