CXC motif chemokine receptor 4 gene polymorphism and cancer risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous epidemiological studies have reported the relationship between CXC motif chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) synonymous polymorphism (rs2228014), and risk of cancer, but the results remained conflicting and controversial. Therefore, this study was devised to evaluate the genetic effects of the rs2228014 polymorphism on cancer risk in a large meta-analysis. METHODS: The computer-based databases (EMBASE, Web of Science, and PubMed) were searched for all relevant studies evaluating rs2228014 and susceptibility to cancer. In the analysis, pooled odds ratios (ORs) with its corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in 5 genetic models to assess the genetic risk. Egger regression and Begg funnel plots test were conducted to appraise the publication bias. RESULTS: Data on rs2228014 polymorphism and overall cancer risk were available for 3684 cancer patients and 5114 healthy controls participating in 11 studies. Overall, a significantly increased risk of cancer was associated with rs2228014 polymorphism in homozygote model (OR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.22-3.33) and in recessive model (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.23-3.16). When stratified by ethnicity, the results were positive only in Asian populations (heterozygote model: OR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.13-1.65; homozygote model: OR = 2.43, 95% CI: 1.21-4.91; dominant model: OR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.13-1.90; recessive model: OR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.13-4.48; and allele model: OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.10-1.99). Besides, in the subgroup analysis by source of control, the result was significant only in population-based control (homozygote model: OR = 2.39, 95% CI: 1.06-5.40; recessive model: pooled OR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.02-4.96). CONCLUSION: In general, our results first indicated that the rs2228014 polymorphism in CXCR4 gene is correlated with an increased risk of cancer, especially among Asian ethnicity. Large, well-designed epidemiological studies are required to verify the current findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.008 | 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".