MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170601697 · doi:10.4021/gr2010.06.214w

A RecQ Protein-like 5 Haplotype is Associated With Colon Cancer

2010· article· en· W2170601697 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Heather M. Ochs‐Balcom

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaplotypeColorectal cancerSingle-nucleotide polymorphismLinkage disequilibriumMinor allele frequencyAlleleSNPGeneticsMedicinePopulationCancerGeneInternal medicineOncologyBiologyGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Emerging murine model data suggests RecQ protein-like 5 ( RECQL5 ) is a tumor suppressor gene. The goal of our study was to test whether RECQL5 gene variants are associated with colon cancer susceptibility. Methods: We examined the association of two haplotype-tagging SNPs in RECQL5 and colon cancer in a population-based study of 390 colon cancer cases and 464 population controls. Results: While both crude and covariate-adjusted single SNP analyses were only suggestive for an association with borderline significance (p = 0.07), haplotype analysis shows that individuals carrying the T-G haplotype (rs820196 common allele and rs4789223 minor allele) were at significantly increased risk for colon cancer (OR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.02-1.76, p = 0.05). Adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory use and family history of colon cancer did not alter the results. Conclusions: These results suggest that a haplotype harboring the minor allele of rs4789223 is associated with colon cancer risk. Further study of RECQL5 as a colon cancer susceptibility gene is warranted, particularly with respect to variants in linkage disequilibrium with rs4789223. Gastroenterol Res. 2010;3(3):101-105 doi: https://doi.org/10.4021/gr2010.06.214w

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.319 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterology ResearchSame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207