Association between the TP53 Codon 72 Polymorphism and Risk of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The associations of the P53 codon 72 polymorphism and risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) were inconclusive in several epidemiological studies. In order to get a more consistent result in these two, we conducted these 9 articles of the meta-analysis and systemic reviews to investigate relationships. An exhaustive search was conducted by us in PubMed and Embase databases up to March 2015. Only the studies consisting of NPC patients who were diagnosed by pathological methods were considered. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of odds ratios (ORs) were used to assess the association and Review Manager (RevMan) 5.2 software were used to perform statistical analyses. Consequently, there were nine studies were selected, which include 1,588 cases and 1,925 controls met the included criteria. Ultimately, systematic meta-analyses were used to extract relevant data and further analyze. The conclusions indicated that the persons who carried Pro/Pro genotype have an increased susceptibility of NPC compared with the persons who carried homozygote Arg/Arg genotype and heterozygote Arg/Pro [OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.72; OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46-0.93]. For Arg allele, the persons with homozygote Pro/Pro genotype have an obviously increased susceptibility to NPC to the persons with an integrated Arg genotype (Arg/Pro + Arg/Arg) [OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.68]. For Pro allele, the conclusions showed the persons with Arg/Arg genotype have an obviously increased risk of NPC compared with the persons with an integrated Pro genotype (Arg/Pro + Pro/Pro) [OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.87]. To sum up, the conclusions of the meta-analysis indicate that Homozygote Pro/Pro genotype obviously increased NPC risk in the P53 codon 72; and Arg allele significantly decreased the susceptibility to NPC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".