Association of PDCD6 polymorphisms with the risk of cancer: Evidence from a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
// Mohammad Hashemi 1, 2 , Gholamreza Bahari 2 , Jarosław Markowski 3 , Andrzej Małecki 4 , Marek J. Łos 5, 8 and Saeid Ghavami 6, 7 1 Cellular and Molecular Research Center, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran 2 Department of Clinical Biochemistry, School of Medicine, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran 3 ENT Department, School of Medicine, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Katowice, Poland 4 Faculty of Physiotherapy, The Jerzy Kukuczka Academy of Physical Education in Katowice, Katowice, Poland 5 Department of Molecular Biology, School of Pharmacy with the Division of Laboratory Medicine in Sosnowiec, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Katowice, Poland 6 Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Science, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada 7 Health Policy Research Center, Institute of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran 8 Centre de Biophysique Moléculaire, CNRS, Rue Charles Sadron, Orleans, France Correspondence to: Mohammad Hashemi, email: mhd.hashemi@gmail.com ; hashemim@zaums.ac.ir Marek J. Łos, email: bioappl@gmail.com Keywords: PDCD6; meta-analysis; cancer; risk; endometrial cancer Received: January 08, 2018 Accepted: April 12, 2018 Published: May 15, 2018 ABSTRACT This study was designed to evaluate the relationship between Programmed cell death protein 6 (PDCD6) polymorphisms and cancer susceptibility. The online databases were searched for relevant case-control studies published up to November 2017. Review Manage (RevMan) 5.3 was used to conduct the statistical analysis. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) was employed to calculate the strength of association. Overall, our results indicate that PDCD6 rs3756712 T>G polymorphism was significantly associated with decreased risk of cancer under codominant (OR = 0.82, 95%CI = 0.70–0.96, p = 0.01, TG vs TT; OR = 0.53, 95%CI = 0.39-0.72, p < 0.0001, GG vs TT), dominant (OR = 0.76, 95%CI = 0.66-0.89, p = 0.0004, TG+GG vs TT), recessive (OR = 0.57, 95%CI = 0.43-0.78, p = 0.0003, GG vs TT+TG), and allele (OR = 0.76, 95%CI = 0.67–0.86, p < 0.00001, G vs T) genetic model. The finding did not support an association between rs4957014 T>G polymorphism of PDCD6, and different cancers risk.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".