Genetic Polymorphisms of <i>SULT1A1</i> and <i>SULT1E1</i> and the Risk and Survival of Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined whether common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in SULT1A1 (c.779G>A, *14A>G, and *85C>T) and SULT1E1 (IVS1-447C>A, IVS4-1653T>C, and *959G>A) genes influenced the risk and survival of breast cancer. Our study population consisted of 989 histologically confirmed sporadic breast cancer patients and 1,054 controls without history of cancer recruited from three teaching hospitals in Seoul. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated by logistic regression model. In the survival analysis for 529 breast cancer patients with completed treatments, the hazard ratios (HR) were calculated with Cox proportional hazard model. Women with the SULT1E1 *959 GA/AA genotype had a moderately decreased breast cancer risk compared with those with the GG genotypes (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00). When the haplotypes were considered, the homozygous *959 AA genotype together with the IVS4-1653 T>C base change (CTA-CCA haplotype) was associated with halved breast cancer risk (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.24-0.88) compared with the wild type CTG-CTG haplotype. No other significant overall association was observed between the SULT1A1 and SULT1E1 SNPs nor haplotypes and breast cancer risk. When stratified by survival, patients with the SULT1E1 IVS4-1653 TC/CC genotypes showed a >3-fold risk of recurrence (HR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.39-7.48) compared with those with the TT genotype. Moreover, when the haplotypes were considered, the SULT1E1 *959 G>A base change together with the IVS4-1653 T>C base change (CTG-CCA haplotype) was associated with a >4-fold risk of breast cancer (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.15-15.15). These findings suggest that genetic polymorphisms of SULT1E1 are associated with increased risk and a disease free survival of breast cancer in Korean women.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".