Two <i>BRM</i> promoter polymorphisms predict poor survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polymorphisms in the promoter of the BRM gene, a critical subunit of the chromatin remodeling SWI/SNF complex, have previously been implicated in risk and prognosis in Caucasian-predominant lung, head and neck, esophageal, and pancreatic cancers, and in hepatocellular cancers in Asians. We investigated the role of these polymorphisms in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk and prognosis. HCC cases were recruited in a comprehensive cancer center while the matched controls were recruited from family practice units from the same catchment area. For risk analyses, unconditional logistic regression analyses were performed in HCC patients and matched healthy controls. Overall survival analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazard models, Kaplan-Meier curves, and log-rank tests. In 266 HCC cases and 536 controls, no association between either BRM promoter polymorphism (BRM-741 or BRM-1321) and risk of HCC was identified (P > 0.10 for all comparisons). There was significant worsening of overall survival as the number of variant alleles increased: BRM-741 per variant allele adjusted hazards ratio (aHR) 5.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.89-11.54 and BRM-1321 per variant allele aHR 4.09, 95%CI 2.22-7.51. The effects of these two polymorphisms were at least additive, where individuals who were double homozygotes for the variant alleles had a 45-fold increase in risk of death when compared to those who were double wild-type for the two polymorphisms. Two BRM promoter polymorphisms were strongly associated with HCC prognosis but were not associated with increased HCC susceptibility. The association was strongest in double homozygotes for the allele variants.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".