<i>VEGF</i> Polymorphisms and Survival in Early-Stage Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Polymorphisms in the VEGF gene have been identified that are believed to have functional activity. We hypothesized that such polymorphisms may affect survival outcomes among early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated the relationship between VEGF polymorphisms and overall survival (OS) among patients with early-stage NSCLC treated with surgical resection at Massachusetts General Hospital from 1992 to 2001. We specifically investigated the VEGF polymorphisms +936C>T (rs3025039), -460T>C (rs833061), and +405G>C (rs2010963). Analyses of genotype associations with survival outcomes were performed using Cox proportional hazards models, Kaplan-Meier methods, and the log-rank test. RESULTS: There were 462 patients and 237 deaths. Patients carrying the variant C allele of the VEGF +405G>C polymorphism had significantly improved survival (crude hazard ratio [HR] = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.90; P = .006; adjusted HR = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.91; P = .008). Five-year OS for patients carrying the variant C allele of the VEGF +405G>C polymorphism was 61% (95% CI, 54% to 67%) versus 51% (95% CI, 43% to 59%) for those who had the wild-type variant. There was a trend toward improved survival among patients carrying the variant T allele of the VEGF +936C>T polymorphism (crude HR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.03; P = .07; adjusted HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03; P = .07). Moreover, patients with higher number of variant alleles of the +405G>C and +936C>T polymorphisms had better survival. There was no association found with the -460T>C polymorphism. CONCLUSION: Polymorphisms in VEGF may affect survival in early-stage lung 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 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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".