MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999872588 · doi:10.1002/gcc.10026

Genomic gains and losses are similar in genetic and histologic subsets of rhabdomyosarcoma, whereas amplification predominates in embryonal with anaplasia and alveolar subtypes

2001· article· en· W1999872588 on OpenAlexaff
Julia A. Bridge, Jian Liu, Stephen J. Qualman, Ron F. Suijkerbuijk, Gail D. Wenger, Ji Zhang, Xiaoying Wan, K. Scott Baker, Poul H. Sorensen, Frederic G. Barr

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes Chromosomes and Cancer · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsBiologyComparative genomic hybridizationRhabdomyosarcomaFluorescence in situ hybridizationAlveolar rhabdomyosarcomaGene duplicationEmbryonal rhabdomyosarcomaAmpliconHRASPathologyGeneticsLocus (genetics)Fusion geneCancer researchSarcomaChromosomeGenePolymerase chain reactionMedicineMutation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this investigation, we selected PAX3/FKHR and PAX7/FKHR fusion transcript-positive and -negative alveolar rhabdomyosarcomas (ARMSs) and embryonal rhabdomyosarcomas (ERMSs) with and without anaplastic features, to ascertain genomic imbalance differences and/or similarities within these histopathologic and genetic rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) variants. Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) studies were performed on 45 rhabdomyosarcoma specimens consisting of 23 ARMSs and 22 ERMSs (12 ERMS cases were included from an earlier study). The anaplastic variant of RMS has not previously been subjected to CGH analysis. Overall, the most prominent imbalances were gain of chromosomes or chromosomal regions 2/2q (40%), 7/7q (31%), 8/8p (53%), 11/11q (31%), 12q13-15 (49%), 13q14 (22%), and 20/20p (31%), and loss of 1p36 (27%), 3p14-21 (22%), 9q21-22 (33%), 10q22-qter (18%), 16q (27%), 17p (22%), and 22 (22%). These gains and losses were distributed equally between ARMS and ERMS histologic subtypes (excluding 7/7q and 11/11q gain that were observed chiefly in ERMS), demonstrating that these entities are similar with respect to recurrent genomic imbalances. Moreover, genomic imbalances were also evenly distributed among the ARMS fusion transcript subtypes, providing evidence for a genetic kinship despite the absence of a fusion transcript in some cases. Genomic amplification was detected in 26% and 23% of the ARMS and ERMS cases, respectively (with nearly all of the latter subset exhibiting anaplastic features). One amplicon, involving 15q25-26, corresponds to the locus of the insulin-like growth factor type I receptor (IGF1R) gene. Amplification of IGF1R was confirmed molecularly in the cases exhibiting a 15q25-26 amplicon. In summary, these results indicate that genomic gains and losses involve alike chromosomes with similar frequencies within the histopathologic and genetic subtypes of rhabdomyosarcoma, that genomic amplification is frequent not only in the alveolar histologic subtype of rhabdomyosarcoma but also in ERMS with anaplasia, and that amplification of IGF1R possibly plays a role in the development or progression of a subset of rhabdomyosarcomas.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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

Citations168
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes Chromosomes and CancerSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207