MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genetic Predisposition to Colorectal Cancer

2006· review· en· W1993879514 on OpenAlexaff
Carol Durno, Steven Gallinger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamilial adenomatous polyposisMUTYHColorectal cancerLynch syndromeGermlineGenetic predispositionGenetic counselingCancerGermline mutationDNA mismatch repairAdenomatous polyposis coliInternal medicineMutationOncologyGeneticsGeneDiseaseBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colorectal cancer is rare in childhood. The 2 best characterized familial syndromes, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), are autosomal dominant inherited disorders. HNPCC is relevant to pediatric gastroenterology practice because children and adolescents with underlying colorectal cancer can have germ-line mutations of mismatch repair genes. Recent attention has focused on characterizing genetic predisposition to attenuated FAP in individuals who do not have germ-line mutations in the APC gene. The identification of a second mechanistic explanation called MYH-associated polyposis (MAP), which is an autosomal-recessive condition, has important implications for both screening and management strategies. Hereditary colorectal cancer including HNPCC, FAP, attenuated FAP and MYH-associated polyposis in children are the subject of this review.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations44
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and NutritionSame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207