MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1954515006 · doi:10.1586/14737140.2015.1090879

Genetic risk assessment and prevention: the role of genetic testing panels in breast cancer

2015· review· en· W1954515006 on OpenAlex
Jordan Lerner‐Ellis, Sam Khalouei, Victoria Sopik, Steven A. Narod

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anticancer Therapy · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPALB2CHEK2MedicineBreast cancerGenetic testingPenetranceCancerOncologyGenetic predispositionGeneticsPTENInternal medicineMutationGermline mutationGeneBiologyPhenotypeDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multigene panel tests are being increasingly used for the genetic assessment of women with an apparent predisposition to breast cancer. Here, we review all studies reporting results from individuals who have undergone multigene panel testing for hereditary breast cancer. Across all gene panel studies, the prevalence of pathogenic mutations was highest in BRCA1 (5.3%) and BRCA2 (3.6%) and was lowest in PTEN (0.1%), CDH1 (0.1%) and STK11 (0.01%). After BRCA1/2, the prevalence of pathogenic mutations was highest in CHEK2 (1.3%), PALB2 (0.9%) and ATM (0.8%). The prevalence of variants of unknown significance was highest in ATM (9.6%). Based on the prevalence and penetrance of pathogenic mutations and the prevalence of variants of unknown significance, it is our interpretation that BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2 and CHEK2 are the best candidates for inclusion in a clinical multigene breast cancer panel.

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 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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.366 · 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