Estrogen receptor status in CHEK2‐positive breast cancers: implications for chemoprevention
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
To investigate the relationship between CHEK2 mutation status and estrogen receptor (ER) status in unselected cases of early-onset breast cancer from Poland, we screened 4441 women diagnosed with breast cancer younger than 51 years and 7217 controls for three inherited mutations in CHEK2 (1100delC, IVS2+1G>A, del5395). ER status was compared between CHEK2-positive and CHEK2-negative breast cancer cases. A truncating mutation in CHEK2 was seen in 140 of 4441 cases and in 70 of 7217 controls [odds ratio (OR) = 3.3; 95% CI = 2.5-4.4; p < 0.0001]. ER status was available for 92 of 140 mutation carriers and for 3001 of 4301 non-carriers with breast cancer. The OR was higher for ER-positive cancers (OR = 3.9; 95% CI = 2.7-5.4; p < 0.0001) than for ER-negative cancers (OR = 2.1; 95% CI = 1.3-3.3; p = 0.002). Sixty-six of the 92 breast cancers in carriers of CHEK2 truncating mutations were ER positive compared with 1742 of the 3001 breast cancers in non-carriers (72% vs 58%; p = 0.01). Women with a CHEK2 mutation face a fourfold increase in the risk of ER-positive breast cancer and might be candidates for tamoxifen chemoprevention.
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