MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157357971 · doi:10.3390/jpm11050347

Genetic Predictors for Sinusoidal Obstruction Syndrome—A Systematic Review

2021· review· en· W3157357971 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Waespe, Sven Strebel, Simona Jurković Mlakar, Maja Krajinović, Claudia E. Kuehni, Tiago Nava, Marc Ansari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personalized Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGSTP1Hematopoietic stem cell transplantationGenetic associationExome sequencingCandidate geneMethylenetetrahydrofolate reductaseGeneBioinformaticsOncologyInternal medicineSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneticsBiologyTransplantationAlleleGenotypeMutation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS) is a potentially life-threatening complication after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) or antineoplastic treatment without HSCT. Genetic variants were investigated for their association with SOS, but the evidence is inconclusive. We performed a systematic literature review to identify genes, gene variants, and methods of association analyses of genetic markers with SOS. We identified 23 studies after HSCT and 4 studies after antineoplastic treatment without HSCT. One study (4%) performed whole-exome sequencing (WES) and replicated the analysis in an independent cohort, 26 used a candidate-gene approach. Three studies included >200 participants (11%), and six were of high quality (22%). Variants in 34 genes were tested in candidate gene studies after HSCT. Variants in GSTA1 were associated with SOS in three studies, MTHFR in two, and CPS1, CTH, CYP2B6, GSTM1, GSTP1, HFE, and HPSE in one study each. UGT2B10 and LNPK variants were identified in a WES analysis. After exposure to antineoplastic agents without HSCT, variants in six genes were tested and only GSTM1 was associated with SOS. There was a substantial heterogeneity of populations within and between studies. Future research should be based on sufficiently large homogenous samples, adjust for covariates, and replicate findings in independent cohorts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personalized MedicineSame topicHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationFrench-language works237,207