MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924639245 · doi:10.1002/mgg3.650

Influence of <i>IL‐1R2</i> polymorphisms on endometrial cancer susceptibility in the Chinese Han population

2019· article· en· W2924639245 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jia‐Min Wu, Wenjie Zhang, Junhong Cai, Sizhe Huang, Fanglin Niu, Ying Zhang, Shan Bao, Tianbo Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Response and Inflammation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWestern UniversityNorthwest UniversityMinistry of Education
KeywordsEndometrial cancerSingle-nucleotide polymorphismHaplotypeOdds ratioOncologyMedicineInternal medicineCase-control studyCancerBioinformaticsGeneticsGenotypeBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recently, many studies have identified that genetic factor plays a crucial role in endometrial cancer development. The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of IL-1R2 on endometrial cancer susceptibility. METHODS: We performed a case-control study that included 293 patients with endometrial cancer and 579 healthy controls. Six SNPs in the IL-1R2 gene were genotyped using the Agena MassARRAY platform. Genetic models and haplotype analyses were used to assess the association between SNPs and endometrial cancer risk by computing odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Overall analysis results found that two SNPs (rs4851527 and rs3218896) and haplotypes TGTC and TACT were significantly associated with endometrial cancer risk. Stratified analysis by age showed that rs2072472 was associated with endometrial cancer risk in age >54 subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggested that IL-1R2 polymorphisms may contribute to the development of endometrial cancer. Further studies are required to confirm the results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Genetics & Genomic MedicineSame topicImmune Response and InflammationFrench-language works237,207