E‐cadherin (<i>CDH1</i>) gene –160C/A polymorphism and the risk of colorectal cancer: A meta‐analysis involving 17,291 subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The E-cadherin (CDH1) polymorphism has been implicated in the susceptibility to colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the results remain inconclusive. The present meta-analysis aimed to investigate the association between the CDH1-160C/A polymorphism and CRC risk. METHODS: Relevant studies were retrieved by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI and Wanfang databases up to 11 March 2021. Pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were calculated using either the fixed- or random-effects model. Quality evaluation was carried out using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to reduce the risk of type I error. RESULTS: In total, 16 studies from 14 articles with 8699 patients and 8592 controls were included. In general, all studies were of high quality (NOS score higher than 6). Overall, no significant associations between the CDH1 -160C/A polymorphism and CRC risk were detected. In subgroup analysis by ethnicity, source of control, genotyping method and location, significant associations were found between the CDH1-160C/A polymorphism and the risk of CRC in the Caucasians and the hospital-based subgroup. Furthermore, 10 studies with 8019 subjects reported the association between the polymorphism and clinical characteristics in CRC patients, and we found that the CDH1-160C/A polymorphism might show a protective role in the distal CRC subgroup. By TSA, the findings in the present study were based on sufficient evidence in Caucasians, but not in Asians. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that the CDH1-160C/A polymorphism may be an important protective factor for CRC in Caucasians and a hospital-based subgroup. Moreover, the polymorphism show a protective role in the distal CRC group. However, large and well-designed studies are warranted to validate our findings, especially for Asians.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".