MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003955744 · doi:10.1038/clpt.2013.80

Replication of TPMT and ABCC3 Genetic Variants Highly Associated With Cisplatin-Induced Hearing Loss in Children

2013· article· en· W2003955744 on OpenAlexafffund
Kusala Pussegoda, Colin J.D. Ross, Henk Visscher, Mojgan Yazdanpanah, Beth Brooks, Shahrad R. Rassekh, Yassamin Feroz Zada, Bruce Carleton, Michael R. Hayden

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer therapeutics and mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteBC Children's HospitalUniversité de MontréalChild and Family Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsColumbia universityLibrary scienceMedicineFamily medicineMedia studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cisplatin is a widely used chemotherapeutic agent for the treatment of solid tumors. A serious complication of cisplatin treatment is permanent hearing loss. The aim of this study was to replicate previous genetic findings in an independent cohort of 155 pediatric patients. Associations were replicated for genetic variants in TPMT (rs12201199, P = 0.0013, odds ratio (OR) 6.1) and ABCC3 (rs1051640, P = 0.036, OR 1.8). A predictive model combining variants in TPMT, ABCC3, and COMT with clinical variables (patient age, vincristine treatment, germ-cell tumor, and cranial irradiation) significantly improved the prediction of hearing-loss development as compared with using clinical risk factors alone (area under the curve (AUC) 0.786 vs. 0.708, P = 0.00048). The novel combination of genetic and clinical factors predicted the risk of hearing loss with a sensitivity of 50.3% and a specificity of 92.7%. These findings provide evidence to support the importance of TPMT, COMT, and ABCC3 in the prediction of cisplatin-induced hearing loss in children.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations129
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Pharmacology & TherapeuticsSame topicCancer therapeutics and mechanismsFrench-language works237,207