MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2500412488 · doi:10.1002/ijc.30369

<i>BRM</i> polymorphisms, pancreatic cancer risk and survival

2016· article· en· W2500412488 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maja Segedi, Laura N. Anderson, Osvaldo Espin‐Garcia, Ayelet Borgida, Teresa Bianco, Dangxiao Cheng, Zhuo Chen, Devalben Patel, M. Catherine Brown, Wei Xu, David Reisman, Steven Gallinger, Michelle Cotterchio, Geoffrey Liu, Sean P. Cleary

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cancer · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Canadian institutionsCancer Care OntarioLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOncologyInternal medicineHazard ratioPancreatic cancerOdds ratioLung cancerProportional hazards modelPopulationAdenocarcinomaCancerConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variant alleles of two promoter polymorphisms in the BRM gene (BRM-741, BRM-1321), create MEF2D transcription binding sites that lead to epigenetic silencing of BRM, the key catalytic component of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex. BRM suppression can be reversed pharmacologically.(1) Our group and others have reported associations with lung, head and neck, hepatocellular cancer risk,(1-3) and with lung and esophageal cancer prognosis (ASCO 2013; abstract 11057 & 4077). Herein, we assessed risk and survival associations with pancreatic cancer. A provincial population-based case-control study was conducted with 623 histologically confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinoma cases and 1,192 age/gender distribution-matched controls.(4) Survival of cases was obtained through the Ontario Cancer Registry. Logistic and Cox proportional hazard regression models were fitted, adjusting for relevant covariates. Median age was 65 y; 52% were male; Stage I (8%), II (55%), III (14%), IV (23%); 53% after curative resection, 79% after chemotherapy; and 83% had died. In the risk analysis, adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were 1.01 (95% CI: 0.1-2.0) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.7-1.3) for the homozygotes of BRM-741 and BRM-1321, respectively; aOR of double-homozygotes was 1.11 (95% CI: 0.80-1.53), compared to the double-wildtype. For the survival analysis, adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) were 2.19 (95% CI: 1.9-2.5) for BRM-741 and 1.94 (95% CI: 1.7-2.2) for BRM-1321, per unit increase in variant alleles. Compared with the double-wildtype, aHR for carrying no, one, and two double-homozygotes were 2.14 (95% CI: 1.6-2.8), 4.17 (95% CI: 3.0-5.7), 8.03 (95% CI: 5.7-11.4), respectively. In conclusion, two functional promoter BRM polymorphisms were not associated with pancreatic adenocarcinoma risk, but are strongly associated with survival.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of CancerSame topicChromatin Remodeling and CancerFrench-language works237,207