MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034604243 · doi:10.1309/rfetxn6387klq1ld

Low Frequency of Promoter Methylation of<i>O</i><i><sup>6</sup></i>-Methylguanine DNA Methyltransferase and hMLH1 in Ulcerative Colitis–Associated Tumors

2007· article· en· W2034604243 on OpenAlexaff
Tetuo Mikami, Tsutomu Yoshida, Yoshiko Numata, Hiroaki Shiraishi, Kayo Araki, Marie‐Christine Guiot, Jeremy R. Jass, Isao Okayasu

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUlcerative colitisMethyltransferaseDNA methylationMethylationO-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferaseCancer researchDNAMolecular biologyMedicineBiologyInternal medicineGeneticsGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To cast light on the contribution of methylation to genesis of ulcerative colitis (UC)-associated tumors, promoter methylation and expression of O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT), hMLH1, p16INK4, and E-cadherin were examined in 14 low-grade dysplasias (LGDs), 15 high-grade dysplasias (HGDs), and 14 adenocarcinomas associated with UC and, for comparison, in 30 sporadic adenomas with LGD, 30 adenomas with HGD, and 60 adenocarcinomas, using methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction and immunohistochemical analysis. The frequency of MGMT and hMLH1 methylation in UC-associated tumors was low, with a significant difference between HGD and sporadic adenomas with HGD of the left hemicolon. The methylation frequency of p16INK4 in UC-associated tumors was also relatively low compared with sporadic colonic tumors. For E-cadherin, methylation was limited in both types of tumor. Decrease of expression of MGMT, hMLH1, and p16INK4 was significantly correlated with methylation. Thus, compared with the sporadic type, contribution of methylation to UC-associated tumorigenesis seems to be low.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical PathologySame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207