MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026599274 · doi:10.1002/gepi.10238

Exploring the “two‐hit hypothesis” in NF2: Tests of two‐hit and three‐hit models of vestibular schwannoma development

2003· article· en· W2026599274 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan Woods, Jan M. Friedman, D. Gareth Evans, Michael E. Baser, Harry Joe

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetic Epidemiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma Cases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchwannomaNeurofibromatosis type 2Vestibular systemNeurofibromatosisIncidence (geometry)Probabilistic logicVestibular SchwannomasMedicineGenetic modelAudiologyBiologyComputer sciencePathologyGeneticsArtificial intelligenceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) is a genetic disease that occurs in approximately 1 in 40,000 live births. Almost all affected individuals develop bilateral tumors of Schwann cells that surround the vestibular nerves; these tumors are known as vestibular schwannomas (VS). Evidence from molecular genetic studies suggests that at least two mutations are involved in formation of VS in patients with NF2. Several authors proposed probabilistic models for this process in other tumors, and showed that such models are consistent with incidence data. We evaluated two different probabilistic models for a "2-hit" hypothesis for VS development in NF2 patients, and we present results from fitting these models to incidence data. Molecular evidence does not exclude the possibility that additional hits are necessary for the development of VS, and we also assessed a "3-hit" model for tumor formation. The "3-hit" model fits the data marginally better than one of the "2-hit" models and much better than the other "2-hit" model. Our findings suggest that more than two mutations may be necessary for VS development in NF2 patients.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.141
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.141
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.007
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.104 · 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

Citations33
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetic EpidemiologySame topicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma CasesFrench-language works237,207