<i><scp>BRCA1</scp></i> and <i><scp>BRCA2</scp></i> mutations and the risk for colorectal cancer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women who carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation are at high risk of breast and ovarian cancer, and may be at moderately increased risk of other cancer types. This review examines studies to date that have evaluated the risk of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations for colorectal cancer. Accurate knowledge of colorectal cancer risk in BRCA1/2 carriers is important, because colonoscopy screening can prevent colorectal cancer through the removal of adenomatous polyps. Most studies that have identified an increased risk for colorectal cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were in high-risk cancer families, while studies that found no association were conducted in specific populations and involved the analysis of founder mutations. A recent prospective study of 7015 women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation identified significant fivefold increased risk of colorectal cancer among BRCA1 mutation carriers younger than 50 years [standardized incidence ratio (SIR): 4.8; 95% CI: 2.2-9], but not in women with a BRCA2 mutation or in older women. Based on this evidence, women with BRCA1 mutations should be counseled about their increased risk for early-onset colorectal cancer, and offered colonoscopy at 3- to 5-year intervals between the ages of 40 and 50 years, and should follow population guidelines thereafter.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it