A comparison of gene expression pattern in OSCC between young and older individuals, with emphasis on GSTP1 and the Fanconi anemia genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distinct genetic mechanisms may be involved in the development of OSCC in young versus older patients. We used microarray analysis to identify genes differentially expressed in the two patient groups. We performed QRT-PCR to assess the expression of GSTP1, FANCA, FANCC, FANCD2 and FANCG in OSCCs and adjacent mucosa from both groups. GSTP1 was under-expressed in tumors of young patients compared to adjacent mucosa (p=0.007). Both GSTP1 and FANCA had lower expression in tumors of young compared to older patients (p=0.020, p=0.005). By immunohistochemistry, GSTP1 expression was low in 40.5% of young compared to 5% of older patient tumors (p=0.002). FANCG expression was low in 81% of young compared to 37.5% of older patient tumors (p<0.001). GSTP1 plays a key rote in detoxification mechanisms and FANCA in DNA repair. Under-expression of these genes may contribute to carcinogenesis in tumors of young patients, in contrast to OSCC from older 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".