MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cost analysis of DNA‐based testing in a large Canadian family with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2

2004· article· en· W1536175726 on OpenAlexaffabout
DM Gilchrist, DW Morrish, PJ Bridge, JL Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Genetics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbandGenetic testingGenetic counselingMissense mutationMedicineGeneticsMutationFamily historyMultiple endocrine neoplasia type 2DiseaseInternal medicineGermline mutationBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the major goals of genetic testing is the reduction of morbidity and mortality. Given the appropriate circumstances, this can result in reduction in health care costs. Such savings can be demonstrated most effectively in large families with mutations in well characterized, dominantly acting genes. In our large family, a point mutation TGC>CGC in exon 10 of the RET proto-oncogene, which results in a missense mutation (Cys620Arg), was identified in two individuals. The proband has medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC), as did her deceased mother. One son has MTC and Hirschsprung's disease. The proband's mother had nine siblings; the proband has three siblings, another son, and 69 maternal cousins. Genetic testing has been performed on the closest relatives and has identified four individuals with, and 54 individuals without, a familial RET mutation. Significant cost savings have been realized in both genetic testing and clinical surveillance. In this family, for every at-risk individual identified as a true-negative, the minimum yearly savings in clinical surveillance is 508 dollars per person. As demonstrated by this case, economic costs of genetic diagnostics should take into account the potential saved monies in tests, both molecular and clinical.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.296 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical GeneticsSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207