MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046931952 · doi:10.1093/labmed/lmaa055

Quantitative Assessment of the Effects of<i>IL-1ß</i>-511 C&amp;gt;T Variant on Breast Cancer Risk: An Updated Meta-Analysis of 3331 Cases and 3609 Controls

2020· review· en· W3046931952 on OpenAlexaff
Mahdiyeh Harati‐Sadegh, Milad Mohammadoo-Khorasani, Saman Sargazi, Ramin Saravani, Sheida Shahraki, Ebrahim Eskandari

Bibliographic record

VenueLaboratory Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Response and Inflammation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisBreast cancerOdds ratioMedicineInternal medicineWeb of scienceScopusOncologyGynecologyMEDLINECancerBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Growing evidence suggests that IL-1β -511C>T, as a functional variant, affects the risk of developing breast cancer (BC); however, the results have not been conclusive. This meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the link between this variant and BC risk. METHODS: We retrieved available publications on IL-1β -511C>T polymorphism by conducting a comprehensive literature search on the Web of Science, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Google scholar databases (last search on February 25, 2020). RESULTS: The overall analysis indicates that IL-1β -511C>T polymorphism conferred an increased risk of BC under a recessive TT vs CT+CC model by 1.14-fold and showed protection against BC under an overdominant CT vs TT+CC genetic contrast model (odds ratio = 0.84). Stratified analysis based on ethnicity revealed the protective effect of this single-nucleotide polymorphism against BC risk in Caucasian patients. CONCLUSION: Our data results provide a proof of concept for the association of IL-1β -511C>T with BC risk. Larger, well-designed population-based studies are needed to confirm these findings.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaboratory MedicineSame topicImmune Response and InflammationFrench-language works237,207