MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070267699 · doi:10.1038/bjc.2015.13

A high incidence of WT1 abnormality in bilateral Wilms tumours in Japan, and the penetrance rates in children with WT1 germline mutation

2015· article· en· W2070267699 on OpenAlexaff
Yasuhiko Kaneko, Hajime Okita, Masayuki Haruta, Yasuhito Arai, Takaharu Oue, Yukichi Tanaka, Hiroshi Horie, Shiro Hinotsu, Tsugumichi Koshinaga, Akihiro Yoneda, Yoshikazu Ohtsuka, Tomoaki Taguchi, Masayuki Fukuzawa

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
KeywordsPenetranceWilms' tumorGermline mutationBiologyLoss of heterozygosityGermlineGeneticsUniparental disomyMutationIncidence (geometry)Cancer researchAlleleGenePhenotypeChromosomeKaryotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bilateral Wilms tumours (BWTs) occur by germline mutation of various predisposing genes; one of which is WT1 whose abnormality was reported in 17-38% of BWTs in Caucasians, whereas no such studies have been conducted in East-Asians. Carriers with WT1 mutations are increasing because of improved survival. METHODS: Statuses of WT1 and IGF2 were examined in 45 BWTs from 31 patients with WT1 sequencing and SNP array-based genomic analyses. The penetrance rates were estimated in WT1-mutant familial Wilms tumours collected from the present and previous studies. RESULTS: We detected WT1 abnormalities in 25 (81%) of 31 patients and two families, which were included in the penetrance rate analysis of familial Wilms tumour. Of 35 BWTs from the 25 patients, 31 had small homozygous WT1 mutations and uniparental disomy of IGF2, while 4 had large 11p13 deletions with the retention of 11p heterozygosity. The penetrance rate was 100% if children inherited small WT1 mutations from their fathers, and 67% if inherited the mutations from their mothers, or inherited or had de novo 11p13 deletions irrespective of parental origin (P=0.057). CONCLUSIONS: The high incidence of WT1 abnormalities in Japanese BWTs sharply contrasts with the lower incidence in Caucasian counterparts, and the penetrance rates should be clarified for genetic counselling of survivors with WT1 mutations.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207