ERCC polymorphisms and risk of osteosarcoma: a meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The association between excision repair cross-complementation (ERCC) gene family (ERCC1 and ERCC2) and osteosarcoma risk was controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between ERCC1 or ERCC2 and osteosarcoma risk by systematic meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relative studies were retrieved from electronic databases without language restriction. The last search was updated on March 2017. Quality assessment was analyzed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) score, which was recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Meta-analysis was conducted by R language package (R 3.12). RESULTS: This meta-analysis was performed based on 4 case-control studies that included 1208 cases and 2448 controls. The ERCC2-rs1799793 AA+AC > CC (OR=1.3428, 95% CI=1.0201; 1.7674) had an effect on the risk of osteosarcoma development, whereas, there were no significant associations among the other ERCC SNPs (ERCC1 rs3212986, ERCC1 rs11615, and ERCC2 rs13181) and osteosarcoma. CONCLUSIONS: The ERCC2 rs1799793 polymorphism is related to the high risk of osteosarcoma development.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".