Common Variation in Nemo-Like Kinase Is Associated with Risk of Ovarian Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Overexpression of mitotic kinases has been associated with prognosis, histologic grade, and clinical stage in ovarian cancer, but the relationship between inherited variation in these genes and ovarian cancer risk has not been well defined. METHODS: We measured associations between 397 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from 67 mitotic kinases and invasive epithelial ovarian cancer risk in two case-control studies (n = 671 cases; n = 939 controls). Thirty-six candidate SNPs (P < 0.05) were assessed in a replication analysis consisting of three additional studies (n = 1,094 cases; n = 829 controls). RESULTS: In initial analysis, thirty-six SNPs were suggestive of association with risk of serous ovarian cancer, all subtypes of ovarian cancer, or both (P < 0.05). Replication analyses suggested an association between rs2125846 in the Nemo-like kinase (NLK) gene and ovarian cancer (serous OR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.11-1.67, P = 1.77 × 10(-3); all subtypes OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.08-1.56, P = 2.97 × 10(-3)). Furthermore, rs2125846 was associated with risk in the combined discovery and replication sets (serous OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.15-1.54; all subtypes OR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.12-1.45). CONCLUSIONS: Variation in NLK may be associated with risk of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. Further studies are needed to confirm and understand the biologic relationship between this mitotic kinase and ovarian cancer risk. IMPACT: An association between SNPs in NLK and ovarian cancer may provide biologic insight into the development of this disease.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".