Longitudinal Study of Insulin-like Growth Factor, Insulin-like Growth Factor Binding Protein-3, and their Polymorphisms: Risk of Neoplastic Progression in Barrett's Esophagus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) is a potent mitogen. IGF-I and its main binding protein, IGF binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3), and their polymorphisms have been investigated in relation to risk of many cancers, but not esophageal adenocarcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used data and specimens from a longitudinal study of persons with Barrett's esophagus (n=344; median, 5.4 years follow up) to determine whether baseline serum concentrations of IGF-I and IGFBP-3 and associated polymorphisms were related to the risk of developing esophageal adenocarcinoma or flow cytometric abnormalities. RESULTS: Overall, circulating concentrations of IGF-I and IGBP-3 were not associated with risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma or flow cytometric abnormalities, with the exception of an approximate tripling of risk of aneuploidy among participants with higher IGFBP-3 levels [above median; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) comparing subjects with levels lower than median versus higher of equal to median, 2.7; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.2-6.0; P=0.01]. Genotypic analyses revealed that persons with the IGF-I [cytosine-adenine (CA)](19) or the IGFBP-3 A-202C C allele were associated with lower circulating concentrations of IGF-I (P(trend)=0.01) and IGFBP-3 (P(trend)=0.002), respectively. Persons with two copies of the IGF-I receptors 2-bp deletion allele had a nonsignificant 2-fold increased risk of tetraploidy (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.9-5.9; P(trend)=0.11). After adjustment for IGFBP-3 levels, participants carrying two IGFBP-3 C alleles had a significantly higher risk of developing aneuploidy (HR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.0-14.0; P(trend)=0.04) than carriers of A alleles; whereas no associations were observed between the outcomes studied and the IGF-I receptors AGG trinucleotide repeat polymorphism at position 97. CONCLUSION: Our findings, although based on a relatively small number of outcomes and subject to several limitations, indicate a potential role of the complex IGF system in neoplastic progression among persons with Barrett's esophagus.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".