Telomere Length and Breast Cancer Prognosis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Telomeres ensure genome integrity during replication. Loss of telomeric function leads to cell immortalization and accumulation of genetic alterations. The association of telomere length (TL) with breast cancer prognosis is examined through a systematic review. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL), from inception to December 2015, and relevant reviews were searched. Studies that evaluated TL (blood and/or tumor) in association with breast cancer survival or prognostic factor were included. Thirty-six studies met inclusion criteria. Overall risk of bias was critical. Eight studies reported survival outcomes. Overall, there was a trend toward an association of longer telomeres with better outcomes (tumor, not blood). Of the 33 studies reporting associations with prognostic factors, nine adjusted for potential confounders. Among the latter, shorter telomeres were associated with older age (blood, not tumor), higher local recurrence rates (normal tissue), higher tumor grade (tumor), and lower physical activity (blood), which were reported in one study each. TL was not associated with molecular subtype (blood, one study), family history (tumor, one study), chemotherapy (blood, three of four studies), and stress reduction interventions (blood, two of two studies). Although major methodologic differences preclude from drawing conclusive results, TL could be a valuable breast cancer prognostic marker. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(1); 3-10. ©2016 AACR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".