MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979362816 · doi:10.1002/gcc.20082

<i>MLL</i> translocations with concurrent 3′ deletions: Interpretation of FISH results

2004· article· en· W1979362816 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kerry E. Barber, Anthony M. Ford, Rachel L. Harris, Christine J. Harrison, Anthony V. Moorman

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes Chromosomes and Cancer · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsChromosomal translocationFish <Actinopterygii>Fluorescence in situ hybridizationBreakpointBiologyMetaphaseMolecular biologyKaryotypeCytogeneticsGeneticsGeneChromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rearrangements involving the MLL gene at 11q23 occur in a clinically relevant subgroup of patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) at all ages, and therefore their accurate identification at diagnosis is important. It has become commonplace to screen ALL patients for rearrangements of MLL using a dual-color fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay. We report on 12 ALL patients with an unusual FISH result consisting of the following signal pattern: one 5' green, no 3' red, and one/two fusion signals. This configuration is consistent with a MLL translocation and simultaneous deletion of 3' MLL-a well-established phenomenon-which has been interpreted as a positive result. G-banded and complementary metaphase FISH analyses confirmed an 11q23/MLL translocation in 8 of the 12 cases, whereas in one case, the identification of a del(11)(q23) was restricted to G-banded analysis only. In three cases, an MLL rearrangement was excluded by extensive FISH analysis and/or Southern blotting. In conclusion, the loss of the 3' MLL signal should not be assumed to be the result of a concurrent translocation and deletion event, and such aberrant FISH signal patterns should be investigated further by alternative methods for determining their MLL status.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations25
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes Chromosomes and CancerSame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207