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 OpenAlexaff
Jordan Lerner‐Ellis, Sam Khalouei, Victoria Sopik, Steven A. Narod

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations50
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Anticancer TherapySame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207