The CpG Island Methylator Phenotype Is Not Associated with a Personal or Family History of Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colorectal cancers with widespread CpG island methylation display a number of distinct clinicopathological features, and it has been suggested that the condition has an inheritable genetic component. To address this possibility, histories of cancer were obtained from 562 individuals undergoing curative surgery for unselected colorectal cancer at one institution. Microsatellite status and methylation at p16, MINT1, 2, 12, and 31 loci were determined on fresh tumor tissue using standard methods. Fifty-five of 562 probands in this study provided a personal history of at least one other colorectal cancer, 10 reported at least one extracolonic cancer of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer type, and 84 individuals had another type of cancer. Age was strongly associated with the risk of multiple cancers, but there was no evidence that microsatellite instability or the CpG island methylator phenotype were independent risk factors for their development, either in the colorectum or elsewhere. Of the 547 individuals with knowledge of their family history, 80 (14.6%) reported a family history of colorectal cancer in a first-degree relative, and 60% of individuals reported a history of any cancer in a first-degree relative. Neither tumor CpG island methylator phenotype status nor microsatellite instability was predictive of a positive history of cancer in first- or second-degree relatives. The probability of a positive family or personal history of cancer did not increase with increasing number of methylated loci. Epigenetic silencing of multiple genes seen in some tumors is at best rarely the result of an inherited defect in the methylation apparatus. There is no justification for altering the personal or family cancer screening recommendations on the basis of tumor CpG island methylator phenotype 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".