MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029598464 · doi:10.1002/humu.20044

The androgen receptor gene mutations database (ARDB): 2004 update

2004· article· en· W2029598464 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Bruce Gottlieb, Lenore K. Beitel, Jian Wu, Mark Trifiro

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Mutation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalJohn Abbott College
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchChinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences
KeywordsBiologyAndrogen receptorGeneticsGeneDatabaseComputational biologyCancerProstate cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current version of the androgen receptor (AR) gene mutations database is described. The total number of reported mutations has risen from 374 to 605, and the number of AR-interacting proteins described has increased from 23 to 70, both over the past 3 years. A 3D model of the AR ligand-binding domain (AR LBD) has been added to give a better understanding of gene structure-function relationships. In addition, silent mutations have now been reported in both androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) and prostate cancer (CaP) cases. The database also now incorporates information on the exon 1 CAG repeat expansion disease, spinobulbar muscular atrophy (SBMA), as well as CAG repeat length variations associated with risk for female breast, uterine endometrial, colorectal, and prostate cancer, as well as for male infertility. The possible implications of somatic mutations, as opposed to germline mutations, in the development of future locus-specific mutation databases (LSDBs) is discussed. The database is available on the Internet (http://www.mcgill.ca/androgendb/).

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.020

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations311
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman MutationSame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207