MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389121598 · doi:10.1089/jir.2023.0090

Analysis of <i>Interleukin-6</i> Gene Variants ( <i>rs1800795</i> , <i>rs1800796</i> , <i>rs1554606</i> , <i>rs1800797</i> , <i>rs2069840</i> , <i>rs12700386</i> , and <i>rs2069861</i> ) as Prognostic Markers in Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Network Analysis

2023· review· he· W4389121598 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ali Azizi, Nasrin Mansouri, Mitra Tarlan, Masoud Sadeghi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interferon & Cytokine Research · 2023
Typereview
Languagehe
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCochrane LibraryOdds ratioConfidence intervalMeta-analysisGenotypeInternal medicineMedicineOncologyDistant metastasisGastroenterologyPublication biasBioinformaticsMetastasisGeneBiologyCancerGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interleukin-6 (IL-6) has obviously tumor-promoting and tumor-inhibitory effects and can induce an epithelial–mesenchymal transition phenotype in human breast cancer (BC) cells and implicate its potential to promote BC metastasis. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the association of IL-6 variants (rs1800795, rs1800796, rs1554606, rs1800797, rs2069840, rs12700386, and rs2069861) with the susceptibility to BC. The databases of PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched until December 19, 2022, without any restrictions. The quality assessment of each study was performed based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tool. The Review Manager 5.3 software presented the effect sizes including odds ratio (OR) along with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Both publication bias and sensitivity analyses were carried out by the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2.0 software. A total of 2,508 records were identified among databases and at last, 27 articles were entered into the meta-analysis. Seven polymorphisms of IL-6 were entered into the analyses. Just rs1800797 polymorphism in the dominant model (OR = 1.51; 95% CI = 1.15–2.00; P = 0.003) and rs2069840 polymorphism in heterozygous (OR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.81–0.97; P = 0.008) and dominant (OR = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.84–0.99; P = 0.02) models had a significant association with the BC risk. In conclusion, among 7 polymorphisms and despite a few included cases, the present meta-analysis recommended that the AA+GA genotype of rs1800797 polymorphism had a significantly elevated risk and the GC and the CC+GC genotypes of rs2069840 polymorphism had a protective role in the BC patients.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Bibliometrics, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0350.016
Bibliometrics0.0110.039
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.323 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interferon & Cytokine ResearchSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207