MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

<i>MMP1 1G/2G</i> promoter polymorphism and risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma

2007· article· en· W2241688186 on OpenAlexaff
Shivanshu Singh, Kofi Asomaning, Matthew H. Kulke, Wei Zhou, Rihong Zhai, Li Su, Rebecca S. Heist, Thomas J. Lynch, David C. Christiani, G. Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGenotypeMMP1Odds ratioGenotypingGastroenterologyInternal medicineAdenocarcinomaLung cancerAlleleEsophageal cancerBody mass indexOncologyCancerBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10555 Background: The 2G allele of the MMP1 -1607 1G/2G promoter polymorphism creates an Ets binding site that leads to increased transcriptional and enzyme activity, particularly in the presence of growth factors and cytokines. This polymorphism has been associated with greater risk of cancer (e.g., renal cell, lung and oral cancers, glioblastomas) and cancer invasiveness (e.g., melanoma, cervical, lung and colorectal cancer). The aim of the current study was to evaluate the role of this MMP 1G/2G polymorphism in the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA). Methods: We evaluated 323 histologically confirmed EA cases and 464 healthy controls frequency-matched for age and gender. Genotyping of the MMP1 1G/2G promoter polymorphism involved a Taqman approach. All EAs had endoscopic evidence showing that the center of the tumors were located at or above the gastroesophageal junction. Odds Ratios (OR) were calculated using multivariate logistic regression, adjusted for age, gender, smoking status, and body-mass index (BMI) at the age of 18 years (to represent a healthy adult BMI). Results: Genotype frequencies were: 33% (1G/1G), 47% (1G/2G) & 20% (2G/2G) in controls; in cases, 26% (1G/1G), 50% (1G/2G) & 24% (2G/2G). 88% of cases were male. The MMP1 2G/2G and 1G/2G genotypes conferred a greater risk of EA, with adjusted ORs of 1.50 (95%CI=1.0–2.3) and 1.34 (95%CI=0.9–1.9), respectively, when compared with the wildtype 1G/1G genotype. The 2G allele (2G/2G + 1G/2G) conferred an adjusted OR of 1.38 (95%CI=1.0–1.9). By stage, the adjusted ORs for the 2G allele were 1.26 (95%CI=0.8–2.1), 1.45 (95%CI=0.9–2.3), & 1.54 (95%CI=0.9–2.7) for node negative, node-positive, and metastatic disease, respectively. Conclusions: The 2G allele of the MMP1 -1607 1G/2G polymorphism was associated with an increased risk of EA in this analysis. In addition, there was a non-significant trend towards conferring greater risk in the more advanced stages of EA, suggesting a possible role of this polymorphism in the invasiveness of this cancer. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment→French-language works237,207→