MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068694673 · doi:10.2217/pgs.11.72

Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Gene as a Major Predictor of Severe 5-Fluorouracil Toxicity

2011· review· en· W2068694673 on OpenAlexaff
Ursula Amstutz, Tanja K. Froehlich, Carlo R. Largiadèr

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacogenomics · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsChild and Family Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDihydropyrimidine dehydrogenaseFluorouracilToxicityGenePharmacologyChemistryCancer researchMedicineThymidylate synthaseInternal medicineBiochemistryChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of polymorphisms in the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) gene (DPYD) for the prediction of severe toxicity in 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) based chemotherapy has been controversially debated. As a key enzyme in the catabolism of 5-FU, DPD is the top candidate for pharmacogenetic studies on 5-FU toxicity, since a reduced DPD activity is thought to result in an increased half-life of the drug, and thus, an increased risk of toxicity. Here, we review the current knowledge on well-known and frequently studied DPYD variants such as the c.1905+1G>A splice site variant, as well as the recent discoveries of important functional variation in the noncoding regions of DPYD. We also outline future directions that are needed to further improve the risk assessment of 5-FU toxicity, in particular with respect to metabolic profiling and in the context of different combination therapeutic regimens, in which 5-FU is used today.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations214
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacogenomicsSame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207