Association of<i>endothelial nitric oxide synthase</i>gene T-786C promoter polymorphism with gastric cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the role of endothelial nitric oxide synthase -786T > C promoter polymorphism in the etiology of gastric cancer (GC). METHODS: A total of 150 GC patients and 150 control subjects were included in the study. The information on demographic features was elicited with an informed consent from all the patients and control subjects using a structured questionnaire. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infectivity status was tested in antral biopsies from all the subjects by rapid urease test following the method of Vaira et al. Genomic DNA was isolated from whole blood samples following the salting out method of Lahiri et al. Genotype analysis of the rs2070744 polymorphism was carried out by allele-specific polymerase chain reaction method. The genotypes were determined based on the appearance of bands on an agarose gel stained with ethidium bromide under ultraviolet gel documentation with the help of 100 bp ladder. Odds ratios and corresponding 95%CIs were determined using java stat online software. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the distribution of C allele (C vs T; P = 0.000, OR = 5.038) in patient group compared to the control subjects exhibiting a fivefold increased risk for GC. When the T/T and C/C genotypes were compared, there was an enhanced GC risk for individuals with C/C genotype (T/T vs C/C; P = 0.000). Among the demographic factors, smoking and alcoholism were the common risk factors in patients compared to the control subjects (P < 0.05). Patients with smoking and alcoholism developed cancer even in heterozygous T/C condition (smoking: P = 0.020 and alcoholism: P = 0.005). Individuals with H. pylori infection showed seven fold increased risk for cancer. All the patients with C/C genotype revealed a significant association between H. pylori infection and GC. Among the patients 2.4% of them revealed familial incidence of GC. No significant difference was noticed between cases and controls with regard to consanguinity (P = 0.473). CONCLUSION: The Present data suggest that eNOS-786 C/C genotype and C allele may be considered as potential risk factors in patients with GC.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".