MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mixed Ovarian Germ Cell Tumor in a BRCA2 Mutation Carrier

2007· article· en· W1984491982 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy Hamel, Nora Wong, Lesley Alpert, Maria Galvez, William D. Foulkes

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecological Pathology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysgerminomaLoss of heterozygosityOvarian cancerBiologyImmature teratomaGermline mutationBreast cancerCancer researchTeratomaGerm cellGerm cell tumorsMutationChoriocarcinomaCancerOncologyPathologyOvaryAlleleGeneticsMedicineChemotherapyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BRCA2 germ-line mutations confer an increased risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. We report the occurrence of a mixed ovarian germ cell tumor (GCT) (50% embryonal carcinoma, 20%-25% choriocarcinoma, 10%-15% dysgerminoma, and 10%-15% immature teratoma) in a 33-year-old Ashkenazi Jewish woman, carrier of the BRCA2:6174delT mutation. The mutation is also present in the patient's father, who was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 59 and with prostate cancer at age 69. This is the first report of a GCT in a BRCA2 mutation carrier; there was one previous report of an ovarian dysgerminoma in a BRCA1 carrier. Molecular analysis of the proband's tumor DNA revealed there was no loss of heterozygosity of the wild-type allele in the tumor, as is usually the case for epithelial BRCA-related ovarian tumors. This suggests either that biallelic inactivation of BRCA2 is not required for GCT development or that this is a chance event unrelated to the presence of the mutation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecological PathologySame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207