Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42428247›Full record

ArticleHuman mutation2026

Immune Cell Profiles and Novel Insights Into Cancer Risk: A Focus on Oral and Pharyngeal Cancer.

Xin Deng, Shaohong Huang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human mutation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Xin DengStomatological Hospital, School of Stomatology, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, fimmu.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2074-1714
Shaohong HuangStomatological Hospital, School of Stomatology, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, fimmu.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9169-484X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Oral and pharyngeal cancers affect 850,000 new cases annually with 440,000 deaths worldwide. This study explores the causal relationship between immune cell profiles and oral-pharyngeal cancer risk through Mendelian randomization analysis integrated with experimental validation. Methods: A two-sample Mendelian randomization study was conducted using the MRC IEU OpenGWAS platform, analyzing data from 3757 European individuals for immune cell profiles and 4671 oral-pharyngeal cancer cases, with 80% statistical power to detect OR ≥ 1.2. Multiple Mendelian randomization methods were employed, including inverse-variance weighted, MR-Egger, and weighted median approaches. Findings were validated through coculture experiments examining immune cell-cancer cell interactions via flow cytometry. Results: Among 731 immune traits analyzed, Mendelian randomization revealed elevated cancer risk associated with CD127 on CD45RA+ CD4+ T cells (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.04-1.70, Conclusion: This integrated analysis not only reveals novel immune cell-cancer risk associations and their underlying mechanisms but also provides promising opportunities for personalized immunotherapy development in oral-pharyngeal cancer. These findings enable precise patient stratification based on immune cell profiles and suggest tailored therapeutic strategies that could significantly improve clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Mouth NeoplasmsPharyngeal NeoplasmsGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansMendelian Randomization AnalysisPolymorphism, Single NucleotideRisk Factorscausal inferenceflow cytometrygenome-wide association studiesimmune cellsMendelian randomizationoral and pharyngeal cancer

Identifiers

PMID42428247
PMCPMC13347225

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.