No evidence of linkage to chromosome 1q42.2–43 in 131 prostate cancer families from the ACTANE Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic linkage studies worldwide have proposed various chromosomal localizations for prostate cancer susceptibility genes. A recent study found evidence for linkage to chromosome 1q42.2-43. The aim of our study was to attempt to confirm these findings by performing linkage analysis in 131 families with multiple prostate cancer cases selected from the ACTANE (Anglo, Canada, Texas, Australia, Norway, EU Biomed) Consortium. Parametric and non-parametric linkage (NPL) analyses were performed. Two-point LOD scores failed to show evidence of linkage at any marker (maximum two-point LOD score = 0. 40 at recombination fraction theta = 0.2 with marker D1S2850). Using a multipoint heterogeneity analysis, the estimated proportion of families linked to this putative locus (alpha) was 0% (95% CI = 0. 00-0.33). Non-parametric linkage analysis also found no evidence of linkage (maximum NPL score = -0.12, P = 0.55). This analysis of 131 ACTANE families does not support the presence of a locus for a prostate cancer susceptibility gene at 1q42.2-43. Although we cannot rule out the existence of such a locus, analysis indicates that less than 16% of families could be linked to this region. These findings may be a reflection of the locus heterogeneity involved in this disease indicating that there are still other major susceptibility loci to be identified.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".