MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163539644

Significant association of cyclin D1 single nucleotide polymorphisms with oral cancer in taiwan.

2011· article· en· W2163539644 on OpenAlexaff
Ming Hsui Tsai, Chia Wen Tsai, Yung An Tsou, Chun Hua, Chia Fang Hsu, Da Tian Bau

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related Molecular Pathways
Canadian institutionsTerry Fox Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenotypeSingle-nucleotide polymorphismCyclin D1CarcinogenesisInternal medicineAlleleCancerOncologyCell cycleBiologyCase-control studyMedicineGeneticsCancer researchGene
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: The cell cycle regulator cyclin D1 (CCND1) is thought to play a major role in the transition of the cell cycle from G(1) to S-phase. It is known that cancer cells have unbalanced cell cycle regulation. This study aimed to investigate the association of CCND1 single nucleotide polymorphisms A870G (rs9344) and C1722G (rs678653) with oral cancer risk and examine the interaction between CCND1 and smoking habit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this hospital-based case-control study, the CCND1 polymorphisms were investigated in 620 patients and 620 age- and gender-matched controls. RESULTS: Significant differences were shown between the oral cancer and control groups in the distribution of the genotypes (p=0.0014) and allelic frequency (p=0.0027) in the CCND1 rs9344 genotype. Individuals who carried at least one G allele (GG or AG) had a 0.64-fold decreased risk of developing oral cancer compared to those who carried the AA wild-type genotype (95% CI: 0.50-0.81). There was an obvious joint effect of CCND1 rs9344 genotype with smoking habit on oral cancer. CONCLUSION: Cell cycle regulation may play a role in oral carcinogenesis and CCND1 rs9344 polymorphism maybe a useful biomarker for oral oncology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCancer-related Molecular PathwaysFrench-language works237,207