MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058514643 · doi:10.1002/humu.21285

dbCPCO: a database of genetic markers tested for their predictive and prognostic value in colorectal cancer

2010· article· en· W2058514643 on OpenAlexaff
Sevtap Savas, H. Banfield Younghusband

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Mutation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColorectal cancerBiologyGermline mutationGermlineCancerDatabaseGeneticsOncologyBioinformaticsMutationGeneMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer with a 5-year survival rate of 30-65%. A portion of the interpatient variability in its clinical outcome is attributed to inherited and somatic genetic factors. Although numerous research articles have investigated these factors in colorectal cancer, there has not been a central resource, such as a public database, that compiles these findings. Here we describe the dbCPCO, a database of genetic variations tested for association with colorectal cancer prognosis and clinical outcome. dbCPCO curates the results of research articles on colorectal cancer that investigate the possible correlation of genetic factors with various patient and tumor characteristics. Literature reports are retrieved from PubMed. The data that meet the inclusion criteria are compiled in a relational database and posted in a dedicated Website. The genetic factors include inherited genetic polymorphisms, and somatic and germline mutations in both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. As of March 2010, the dbCPCO Website posts 778 scientific findings on 456 polymorphisms, somatic and germline mutations from 189 genes, and genetic loci tested for correlation with clinicopathological features and/or clinical outcome in colorectal cancer. The dbCPCO is periodically updated and freely available for the scientific and medical community at http://www.med.mun.ca/cpco.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.547
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations24
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman MutationSame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207