MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101476723 · doi:10.1186/1471-2407-3-33

Circulating soluble Fas levels and risk of ovarian cancer

2003· article· en· W2101476723 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Eva Lundin, Seth Guller, Annekatrin Lukanova, Andrea Micheli, Yuehong Ma, Yelena Afanasyeva, Anne Zeleniuch‐Jacquotte, Vittorio Krogh, Per Lenner, Paola Muti, Sabina Rinaldi, Rudolf Kaaks, Franco Berrino, Göran Hallmans, Paolo Toniolo

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cancer · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell death mechanisms and regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute on AgingAssociazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul CancroCancerfondenYork UniversityU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsMedicineOvarian cancerBiomarkerInternal medicineCase-control studyProspective cohort studySurgical oncologyCancerOncologyConfoundingConfidence intervalGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dysregulation of apoptosis, specifically overexpression of soluble Fas (sFas), has been proposed to play a role in the development of ovarian cancer. The main objective of the present study was to evaluate serum sFas as a potential biomarker of ovarian cancer risk. METHODS: The association between serum sFas levels and the risk of ovarian cancer was examined in a case-control study nested within three prospective cohorts in New York (USA), Umeå (Sweden), and Milan (Italy). Case subjects were 138 women with primary invasive epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosed between 2 months and 13.2 years after the initial blood donation. Control subjects were 263 women who were free of cancer, and matched the case on cohort, menopausal status, age, and enrollment date. Serum sFas levels were determined using a quantitative sandwich enzyme immunoassay. RESULTS: Serum sFas levels were similar in women subsequently diagnosed with ovarian cancer (median, 6.5 ng/mL; range, 4.4-10.2) and in controls (median, 6.8 ng/mL; range, 4.5-10.1). Statistically significant trends of increasing serum sFas with age were observed among cases (r = 0.39, p < 0.0001) and controls (r = 0.42, p < 0.0001). Compared to women in the lowest third, women in the highest third of serum sFas were not at increased risk of ovarian cancer after adjustment for potential confounders (odd ratio (OR), 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.42-1.82). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that serum sFas may not be a suitable marker for identification of women at increased risk of ovarian 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC CancerSame topicCell death mechanisms and regulationFrench-language works237,207