Polymorphisms of DNA Repair Genes XPD (Lys751Gln) and XRCC1 (Arg399Gln), and The Risk of Age-Related Cataract: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A meta-analysis of available studies was used to test the association between two DNA repair genes and age-related cataract. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, EMBASE and PubMed databases identified six studies that were analyzed. Meta-analysis was used to evaluate single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) of the DNA repair gene xeroderma pigmentosum complementation group D (XPD) (Lys751Gln) and the X-ray repair cross-complementing gene 1 (XRCC1) (Arg399Gln). Only articles published before June 6, 2014, were included. The quality of the studies was determined using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tools. The summary odds ratio (OR) and corresponding confidence interval (CI) for XPD Lys751Gln and XRCC1 Arg399Gln polymorphisms and risk of age-related cataract were estimated by random and fixed-effects models. Sensitivity analysis was employed to determine the robustness of the conclusions. RESULTS: Six studies, with a total of 1518 patients with cataractous lenses and 1437 subjects with clear lenses, were included in the meta-analysis. XRCC1 Arg399Gln polymorphisms were associated with cataract risk (recessive model: ORfixed = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67-0.93; dominant model: ORfixed = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.64-1.11; additive model: ORfixed = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.72-0.92). Analysis of Chinese, but not non-Chinese subgroups, confirmed this association. The OR of XPD Lys751Gln polymorphisms for cataract was not significant. The associations remained significant after sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis indicates that XRCC1 Arg399Gln polymorphisms, but not XPD Lys751Gln polymorphisms, are associated with risk of age-related cataract.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.063 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".