MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964630210 · doi:10.1002/pbc.22061

Dyskeratosis congenita: The first NIH clinical research workshop

2009· article· en· W1964630210 on OpenAlexaff
Sharon A. Savage, Inderjeet Dokal, Mary Armanios, Geraldine Aubert, Edward W. Cowen, Demetrio L. Domingo, Neelam Giri, Mark H. Greene, Paul J. Orchard, Jakub Tolar, Ekaterini Tsilou, Carter Van Waes, Judy M.Y. Wong, Neal S. Young, Blanche P. Alter

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelomeres, Telomerase, and Senescence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaTerry Fox Research Institute
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDyskeratosis congenitaMedicineTelomereBone marrow failureStem cellBlood cancerCancerGeneInternal medicineGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dyskeratosis congenita (DC) is a heterogeneous inherited bone marrow failure syndrome, characterized by abnormally short telomeres and mutations in telomere biology genes. The spectrum of telomere biology disorders is growing and the clinical management of these patients is complex. A DC-specific workshop was held at the NIH on September 19, 2008; participants included physicians, patients with DC, their family members, and representatives from other support groups. Data from the UK's DC Registry and the NCI's DC cohort were described. Updates on the function of the known DC genes were presented. Clinical aspects discussed included androgen therapy, stem cell transplant, cancer risk, and cancer screening. Families with DC met for the first time and formed a family support group (http://www.dcoutreach.com/). Ongoing, open collaboration between the clinical, scientific, and family communities is required for continued improvement in our understanding of DC and the clinical consequences of telomeric defects.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations69
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicTelomeres, Telomerase, and SenescenceFrench-language works237,207