MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The I1307K APC mutation in a high‐risk clinic setting: a follow‐up study

2005· article· en· W1578679605 on OpenAlexaff
Miriam Regev, S‐Eisenberg Barzilai, Arié Figer, Jamal Zidan, HH Fidder, Eitan Friedman

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Genetics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Genetics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticColorectal cancerInternal medicineCancerGastroenterologyFamily historyRisk factorMutationColonoscopyAdenomatous polyposis coliBreast cancerOncologyGeneticsGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the I1307K APC mutation clearly confers an increased lifetime risk for colorectal cancer, there is a paucity of data on the natural history of colonic neoplasia in symptomatic and asymptomatic mutation carriers. In this study, 51 Jewish I1307K APC mutation carriers were identified in a high-risk familial cancer clinic over a 4-year period, of whom 29 (56.8%) (four males and 25 females) were successfully telephone interviewed for 0.5-5 years (mean 2.4 +/- 1.4) after initial genetic testing. Of these 29 cases, one individual was diagnosed with colon cancer at the age of 45 years, five had adenomatous polyps (mean number of polyps = 1.8), 11 had breast cancer (mean age at diagnosis 49.5 +/- 10.5 years), and 12 were asymptomatic, at the time of the testing. During the follow-up period, new colonic polyps were diagnosed in three mutation carriers, two with previously diagnosed colon cancer and polyps and only one of the asymptomatic mutation carriers, and two additional previously affected patients had new cancer diagnoses: gastric cancer and melanoma. From this descriptive study, it seems that the short-term risk for colonic polyps in I1307K APC mutation is low, primarily affecting patients with previously diagnosed colon tumors.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical GeneticsSame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207