MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2505555643 · doi:10.17795/ijcp-3467

XRCC1 and OGG1 Gene Polymorphisms and Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review of Literature.

2016· review· en· W2505555643 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Sanjari Moghaddam, Milad Nazarzadeh, Rezvan Noroozi, Hossein Darvish, Alireza Mosavi Jarrahi

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXRCC1Breast cancerMedicineOncologyMeta-analysisPopulationCancerInternal medicineGenotypeGeneticsGeneSingle-nucleotide polymorphismBiologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Known polymorphisms of DNA repair genes can be associated with the risk of many types of cancer. There is no consensus regarding association between XRCC1 and OGG1 with breast cancer (BC). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to collect relevant published studies systematically. DATA SOURCES: Sixty-two publications were identified through searching PubMed, PubMed Central, ISI web of knowledge, and reference list of related articles. STUDY SELECTION: We performed a systematic review according MOOSE guideline criteria. All longitudinal cohort and case-control studies investigating association of any type and grade of breast cancer with XRCC1 and OGG1 gene and their polymorphisms were eligible for initial inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors screened titles and abstracts and extracted all needed information from eligible studies. Four research methodological components causing bias for the association between gene polymorphisms and breast cancer risk, including source of controls sampling, population ethnicity, sample size of studies and menopausal status of cases and controls was used for assessment of quality of studies. RESULTS: A total of 14,793 breast cancer cases and 15,409 controls were included in assessment of XRCC1 Arg194Trp. Four studies showed significant association and one study showed protective effect of XRCC1 Arg194Trp and BC. A total of 7,716 cases and 7,370 controls were included for XRCC1 Arg280His. Only one study showed significant association of XRCC1 Arg280His and breast cancer (OR = 1.82 (1.06 - 3.15). A total of 27,167 cases and 31,998 controls were included to estimate association between XRCC1 Arg399Gln polymorphism and breast cancer. Seven studies showed significant association and one showed protective effect of XRCC1 Arg399Gln and BC. A total of 9,417 cases and 11,087 controls were included for OGG1 Ser326Cys. Among studies focused on OGG1 Ser326Cys, none showed significant association with breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic search of major databases identify many studies addressing the relationship between BC and susceptible alleles in the base excision repair genes and the fact that there are many variations in the magnitude of association depending on inheritance model and the population of the study.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0130.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.235 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207