MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Putative common origin of two <i>MLH1</i> mutations in Italian‐Quebec hereditary non‐polyposis colorectal cancer families

2004· article· en· W1907796043 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Isabelle Thiffault, William D. Foulkes, VA Marcus, Debora B. Farber, Lidia Kasprzak, Elizabeth MacNamara, Nora Wong, Pierre Hutter, Paolo Radice, Lucio Bertario, George Chong

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Genetics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCancer Research Society
KeywordsMLH1GeneticsHaplotypeMSH2BiologyGermline mutationFounder effectMutationLynch syndromeDNA mismatch repairCancerColorectal cancerGeneAllele

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is one of the most common inherited cancer syndromes, accounting for 3-5% of all cases of colorectal cancer. In most HNPCC families, the disease is caused by a germline mutation in MLH1 or MSH2. In some populations, founder mutations appear to explain a substantial fraction of HNPCC. We report here the identification and preliminary characterization of two putative MLH1 founder mutations. The mutation MLH1c.1831delAT was shown to segregate in two Quebec families of Italian origin who fulfilled the Amsterdam criteria for HNPCC. Haplotype analysis using five intragenic microsatellite/single nucleotide polymorphism markers spanning MLH1 on chromosome 3 showed that these two unrelated families share an identical haplotype. In addition, two other Italian kindred whose affected members carry MLH1g.IVS6 + 3A>G also share a common haplotype, suggesting that, similarly, the latter mutation has a common origin. These mutations are the first putative founder MLH1 mutations to be identified in HNPCC kindred of Italian origin.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.352 · 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.

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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