MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224211197 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267358

Immune–related biomarkers shared by inflammatory bowel disease and liver cancer

2022· article· en· W4224211197 on OpenAlexaff
Thong Ba Nguyen, Duy Ngoc, Thuy T. P. Nguyen, Truc Ly Nguyen, Tung Nguyen, Há Thi Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCircular RNAs in diseases
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsInflammatory bowel diseaseMMP9GenemicroRNAImmune systemBiologyBioinformaticsDiseaseYY1MedicineCancer researchImmunologyGene expressionGeneticsPromoterInternal medicineDownregulation and upregulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been indicated that there is an association between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the molecular mechanism underlying the risk of developing HCC among patients with IBD is not well understood. The current study aimed to identify shared genes and potential pathways and regulators between IBD and HCC using a system biology approach. By performing the different gene expression analyses, we identified 871 common differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between IBD and HCC. Of these, 112 genes overlapped with immune genes were subjected to subsequent bioinformatics analyses. The results revealed four hub genes (CXCL2, MMP9, SPP1 and SRC) and several other key regulators including six transcription factors (FOXC1, FOXL1, GATA2, YY1, ZNF354C and TP53) and five microRNAs (miR-124-3p, miR-34a-5p, miR-1-3p, miR-7-5p and miR-99b-5p) for these disease networks. Protein-drug interaction analysis discovered the interaction of the hub genes with 46 SRC-related and 11 MMP9- related drugs that may have a therapeutic effect on IBD and HCC. In conclusion, this study sheds light on the potential connecting mechanisms of HCC and IBD.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicCircular RNAs in diseasesFrench-language works237,207