↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Genetic polymorphisms of CYP1A1 and risk of leukemia: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Genetic polymorphisms of CYP1A1 and risk of leukemia: a meta-analysis
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, October 2015
DOI 10.2147/ott.s92259
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jun Lu, Qian Zhao, Ya-Jing Zhai, Hai-Rong He, Li-Hong Yang, Fan Gao, Rong-Sheng Zhou, Jie Zheng, Xian-Cang Ma

Abstract

The associations between CYP1A1 polymorphisms and risk of leukemia have been studied extensively, but the results have been inconsistent. Therefore, in this study, we performed a meta-analysis to clarify associations of three CYP1A1 polymorphisms (T3801C, A2455G, and C4887A) with the risks of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Medline, EMBASE, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched to collect relevant studies published up to April 20, 2015. The extracted data were analyzed statistically, and pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to quantify the associations. Overall, 26 publications were included. Finally, T3801C was associated with an increased risk of AML in Asians under the dominant model. For A2455G, the risk of ALL was increased among Caucasians in the recessive model and the allele-contrast model; A2455G was also associated with an increased risk of CML among Caucasians under the recessive model, dominant model, and allele-contrast model. For C4887A, few of the included studies produced data. In conclusion, the results suggest that Asians carrying the T3801C C allele might have an increased risk of AML and that Caucasians with the A2455G GG genotype might have an increased risk of ALL. Further investigations are needed to confirm these associations.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Librarian 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 6 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 13%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 October 2015.
All research outputs
#15,348,897
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#1,027
of 2,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,897
of 274,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#32
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,933 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,926 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.