MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092431820 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/47/10/301

Is there a correlation between the structure of hair and breast cancer or BRCA1/2 mutations?

2002· article· en· W2092431820 on OpenAlexaff
Khalid Laaziri, Mark Sutton, P Ghadirian, Alexandria Scott, A‐J Paradis, Patricia N. Tonin, William D. Foulkes

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de MontréalHôtel-Dieu de MontréalMcGill University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsBreast cancerSmall-angle X-ray scatteringMedicineCancerHuman breastMutationOncologyInternal medicineScatteringGeneGeneticsBiologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been suggested that the small angle x-ray scattering (SAXS) pattern of human hair can be used to diagnose breast cancer and possibly to identify BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, who are at significantly elevated risk for developing breast cancer. In particular, the presence of a diffuse ring in the SAXS pattern was said to be diagnostic of either breast cancer or an increased risk thereof. To test this hypothesis, we measured SAXS from the pubic hair of 56 subjects with known BRCA1/2 and breast cancer status. We found that there is no clear association between the pattern of SAXS seen in human pubic hair and the risk of breast cancer or the presence of BRCA1/2 mutations. The possible use of SAXS to diagnose cancer remains conjectural, but this and previous studies do not suggest that SAXS can be used as a reliable method of identifying either BRCA1/2 mutation carriers or women who have had breast cancer.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207