Canadian guideline on genetic screening for hereditary renal cell cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hereditary renal cell cancer (RCC) is an ideal model for germline genetic testing. We propose a guideline of hereditary RCC specific criteria to suggest referral for genetic assessment. METHODS: A review of the literature and stakeholder resources for existing guidelines or consensus statements was performed. Referral criteria were developed by expert consensus. RESULTS: The criteria included characteristics for patients with RCC (age ≤45 years, bilateral or multifocal tumours, associated medical conditions and non-clear cell histologies with unusual features) and for patients with or without RCC, but a family history of specific clinical or genetic diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline represents a practical RCC-specific reference to allow healthcare providers to identify patients who may have a hereditary RCC syndrome, without extensive knowledge of each syndrome. RCC survivors and their families can also use the document to guide their discussions with healthcare providers about their need for referral. The criteria refer to the most common hereditary renal tumour syndromes and do not represent a comprehensive or exclusive list. Prospective validation of the criteria is warranted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".