Array CGH analysis of pediatric medulloblastomas
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain tumors are the second most common childhood cancer. We used high-resolution array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to analyze losses and gains of genetic material from 24 medulloblastomas. The bacterial artificial chromosome clones were ordered on the array, allowing for an average resolution of approximately 420 kilobases. The advantage of this high resolution is that the breakpoints associated with subregional chromosome copy number aberrations can be accurately defined, which in turn allows candidate genes within these regions to be readily defined. In this analysis, we confirmed the frequent involvement of loss of 17p and gain of 17q, although we have now established the position of the breakpoint that consistently lies in the chr17:18318880-19046234 region of the chromosome. Other frequent losses were seen on 8p, 10q, 16q, and 20p, and frequent gains were seen on 2p, 4p, 7, and 19. In addition, the fine-resolution mapping provided by aCGH made it possible to define small chromosome deletions in 1q23.3-q24.2, 2q13.12-q13.2, 6q25-qter, 8p23.1, 10q25.1, and 12q13.12-q13.2. Overall, amplification events were rare, the most common involving MYC (16%), on 8q, although isolated events were seen in 10p11 and 3q.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it