MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Epstein Barr virus genome in nasopharyngeal carcinomas from New Zealand

2000· article· en· W1999625914 on OpenAlexaff
Saurin R. Popat, Per Gunnar Liavaag, Randall P. Morton, Nicholas P. McIvor, Jonathan C. Irish, Jeremy L. Freeman

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNasopharyngeal carcinomaPolynesiansEpstein–Barr virusVirusPopulationBiologyPolymerase chain reactionVirologyPathologyGeneticsGeneMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The population in New Zealand is a heterogeneous mix of Caucasians (80%), Maori (9%), and Polynesians (10%). It is believed that the Polynesians are of Chinese descent and may harbor the same high incidence of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). In addition, it is not known whether the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is as closely associated with the development of NPC in Polynesians as it is in those of Chinese origin. METHODS: This study reexamines the associative correlation between EBV and NPC with two methods of genetic detection, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and in-situ hybridization (ISH). In addition, geographic heterogeneity was analyzed to determine whether there are differences in the prevalence of EBV in NPCs among the ethnic mixed populations found in New Zealand. Nasopharyngeal biopsy specimens from 20 patients with NPC and 36 controls were obtained from Auckland. RESULTS: With PCR, EBNA-1, a genomic sequence of EBV in NPC samples was able to be detected with 76.5% sensitivity and 96.7% specificity. By use of ISH, EBV was detected in NPC tissue with 82.4% sensitivity and 100% specificity. CONCLUSION: There seems to be no geoanthropologic differences in terms of the association of EBV with NPC.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0040.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.257 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations12
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207