Family studies in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and other lymphoproliferative tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Families with multiple individuals affected with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) and other related B-cell tumours have been described in the literature. Familial CLL does not appear to differ from sporadic CLL in terms of prognostic markers and clinical outcome. Large, population-based case-control and cohort studies have also shown significant familial aggregation of CLL and related conditions, including non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphoma. Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis also aggregates in CLL families. However, the clinical implication of familial aggregation is minimal given the overall rarity of CLL. Linkage studies have been conducted in high-risk CLL families to screen the whole genome for loci that contribute to susceptibility but no gene mutations have yet been identified by this method. Association studies of candidate genes have implicated immune function and other genes but more studies are needed to verify these findings. The ability to conduct large scale genomic studies will play an important role in detecting susceptibility genes for CLL over the next few years and thereby help to delineate aetiological pathways.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".