MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090076150 · doi:10.1042/bsr20192051

An updated meta-analysis of the association between fibroblast growth factor receptor 4 polymorphisms and susceptibility to cancer

2020· review· en· W3090076150 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioscience Reports · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFibroblast Growth Factor Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaResearch Institute in Oncology and HematologyCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCancerGeneticsAssociation (psychology)Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2BiologyCancer researchOncologyComputational biologyReceptorFibroblast growth factorMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fibroblast growth factor receptor 4 (FGFR4) is a cell surface receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) for FGFs. Several studies have focused on the association between FGFR4 polymorphisms and cancer development. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the association between FGFR4 rs351855 (Gly388Arg), rs1966265 (Val10Ile), rs7708357, rs2011077, and rs376618 polymorphisms and cancer risk. Eligible studies were identified from electronic databases. All statistical analyses were achieved with the STATA 14.0 software. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to quantitatively estimate the association. Overall, no significant association was found among rs351855, rs2011077, and rs376618 polymorphisms with the risk of overall cancer. The rs1966265 polymorphism significantly decreased the risk of cancer in recessive (OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.78-0.97, P=0.009, TT vs CT+CC) genetic model. Whereas the rs7708357 polymorphism was positively associated with cancer risk in dominant (OR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.02-1.36, P=0.028) genetic model. Stratified analysis revealed that rs351855 variant significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer in heterozygous (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.02-1.32, P=0.025 AG vs GG), dominant (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.06-1.35, P=0.004, AG+AA vs GG), and allele (OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.06-1.41, P=0.005, A vs G) genetic models. In summary, the findings of this meta-analysis indicate that rs1966265, rs7708357, and rs351855 polymorphisms are correlated to cancer development. Further well-designed studies are necessary to draw more precise conclusions.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.294 · 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