MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171221574 · doi:10.1093/carcin/bgm087

Association between CYP3A4 genotype and risk of endometrial cancer following tamoxifen use

2007· article· en· W2171221574 on OpenAlexaff
William Chu, Anthony Fyles, Edward M. Sellers, David R. McCready, Joan Murphy, Tuya Pal, Steven A. Narod

Bibliographic record

VenueCarcinogenesis · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTamoxifenEndometrial cancerBreast cancerOncologyGenotypeCYP3A4Internal medicineMedicineCancerAlleleGynecologyEndocrinologyBiologyCytochrome P450GeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tamoxifen is a selective estrogen receptor modulator that is used to treat and to prevent breast cancer; however, its use is associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer. Tamoxifen is metabolized by various cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, but predominantly by CYP3A4. In this study, we examined whether a genetic variant of the CYP3A4 gene, CYP3A4*1B, influences endometrial cancer risk--alone and when associated with tamoxifen exposure. We conducted a case-control study on 566 endometrial cancer cases and 964 ethnically matched controls. The variant CYP3A4 allele was present in 6% of the controls and 9% of the endometrial cancer patients (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.1-2.3, P = 0.02). The allele was more common in women with endometrial cancer who had been treated with tamoxifen for breast cancer (16%). Women who carried the CYP3A4*1B allele had approximately 3-fold increase in the risk of developing endometrial cancer following tamoxifen treatment, compared with women who did not take tamoxifen (P = 0.004). These findings suggest that a subgroup of breast cancer patients who carry the CYP3A4*1B allele and take tamoxifen may be at increased risk of developing endometrial 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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations38
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCarcinogenesisSame topicEstrogen and related hormone effectsFrench-language works237,207