MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087791044 · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-06-0494

High-risk Melanoma Susceptibility Genes and Pancreatic Cancer, Neural System Tumors, and Uveal Melanoma across GenoMEL

2006· article· en· W2087791044 on OpenAlexaff
Alisa M. Goldstein, May Chan, Mark Harland, Elizabeth M. Gillanders, Nicholas K. Hayward, Marie-Françoise Avril, Esther Azizi, Giovanna Bianchi‐Scarrà, D. Timothy Bishop, Brigitte Bressac–de Paillerets, William Bruno, Donato Calista, Lisa Cannon‐Albright, Florence Démenais, David E. Elder, Paola Ghiorzo, Nelleke A. Gruis, Johan Hansson, David Hogg, Elizabeth A. Holland, Peter A. Kanetsky, Richard Kefford, Maria Teresa Landi, Julie Lang, Sancy A. Leachman, Rona M. MacKie, Veronica Magnusson, Graham J. Mann, Kristin B. Niendorf, Julia Newton‐Bishop, Jane M. Palmer, Susana Puig, Joan A. Puig‐Butille, Femke A. de Snoo, Mitchell Stark, Hensin Tsao, Margaret A. Tucker, Linda Whitaker, Emanuel Yakobson

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthVetenskapsrådetUniversità degli Studi di PadovaCancerfondenConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaNational Health and Medical Research CouncilCancer Research UKHuntsman Cancer FoundationUniversity of UtahUniversity of SydneyAustralian Cancer Research FoundationHuntsman Cancer InstituteUtah Department of HealthNational Cancer InstituteMelanoma Research Alliance
KeywordsCDKN2AMelanomaFounder effectp14arfCancerMutationPancreatic cancerGeneticsOncologyMedicineBiologyCancer researchInternal medicineGeneAlleleHaplotypeTumor suppressor geneCarcinogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GenoMEL, comprising major familial melanoma research groups from North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia has created the largest familial melanoma sample yet available to characterize mutations in the high-risk melanoma susceptibility genes CDKN2A/alternate reading frames (ARF), which encodes p16 and p14ARF, and CDK4 and to evaluate their relationship with pancreatic cancer (PC), neural system tumors (NST), and uveal melanoma (UM). This study included 466 families (2,137 patients) with at least three melanoma patients from 17 GenoMEL centers. Overall, 41% (n = 190) of families had mutations; most involved p16 (n = 178). Mutations in CDK4 (n = 5) and ARF (n = 7) occurred at similar frequencies (2-3%). There were striking differences in mutations across geographic locales. The proportion of families with the most frequent founder mutation(s) of each locale differed significantly across the seven regions (P = 0.0009). Single founder CDKN2A mutations were predominant in Sweden (p.R112_L113insR, 92% of family's mutations) and the Netherlands (c.225_243del19, 90% of family's mutations). France, Spain, and Italy had the same most frequent mutation (p.G101W). Similarly, Australia and United Kingdom had the same most common mutations (p.M53I, c.IVS2-105A>G, p.R24P, and p.L32P). As reported previously, there was a strong association between PC and CDKN2A mutations (P < 0.0001). This relationship differed by mutation. In contrast, there was little evidence for an association between CDKN2A mutations and NST (P = 0.52) or UM (P = 0.25). There was a marginally significant association between NST and ARF (P = 0.05). However, this particular evaluation had low power and requires confirmation. This GenoMEL study provides the most extensive characterization of mutations in high-risk melanoma susceptibility genes in families with three or more melanoma patients yet available.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 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

Citations418
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207