MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014054572 · doi:10.1186/1897-4287-8-s1-p2

Clinicopathologic and genetic features of young patients with colorectal cancer

2010· article· en· W2014054572 on OpenAlexaffabout
Melyssa Aronson, Steve Gallinger, Heidi Rothenmund, Kara Semotiuk, Spring Holter, Terri Berk, Aaron Pollett, Zane Cohen, Bharati Bapat, Hyeja Kim, Robert Gryfe

Bibliographic record

VenueHereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerInternal medicineFamily historyLynch syndromeGastroenterologyCancerDNA mismatch repair

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the 3rd most common cancer in Canada, often occurring at older ages. While early-onset CRC can be suggestive of an inherited syndrome, the underlying genetic cause remains unexplained in many of these young individuals. Clinicopathologic features along with genetic and family information were collected on individuals diagnosed with CRC ≤35 years old identified through the Familial Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry in Toronto, Canada. 441 individuals from 353 families were identified, and to-date, medical records confirmed 254 diagnoses, which were included for analysis. Ninety patients (35.4%) had germline mutations in self or kin (31 MSH2, 36 MLHI, 1 MSH6, 3 PMS2, 24 APC, 2 MYH biallelic and 1 BRCA2). Individuals were classified into six categories; (a) 74 had Lynch syndrome (LS) confirmed by germline mutation or tumour deficiency (b) 4 had constitutional mismatch repair-deficiency (CMMR-D) (c) 61 had polyposis (mutation positive, >25 adenomas or hamartomatous polyps), (d) 6 met Family X criteria, (e) 7 had inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and (f) 102 were unclassified (NOS), with 69 of these individuals having MSS and/or IHC intact tumours. On average, patients with CMMR-D presented younger, with a mean age of 14 years old at diagnosis. 65.2% of patients with LS presented with a proximal tumour (65.2%) compared with the polyposis (10.2%) and NOS (34.4%) groups. In contrast, 83% of polyposis patients and 65.5% of NOS patients presented with distal colon or rectal cancers. Family history was significant for the majority of LS patients with 54 of 73 (74%) meeting Amsterdam I or II criteria. Two of the 7 patients with IBD, and 15 of 98 NOS patients also met Amsterdam I/II criteria, as opposed to the CMMR-D families where none met these criteria. Six LS patients presented with sporadic CRC, as did approximately 25% of polyposis patients and 59.2% of the NOS patients. Cancer site differs between individuals ≤35 years with LS, polyposis and NOS CRC. Greater than 1/3 of patients presented with no significant family history of CRC. While the majority of patients diagnosed with CRC ≤35 have a known hereditary CRC syndrome or risk predisposition, 69 of 221 (31.2%) of individuals appear to have no recognizable syndrome.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHereditary Cancer in Clinical PracticeSame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207