MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095909899 · doi:10.1177/1947601911413466

Li-Fraumeni Syndrome

2011· article· en· W2095909899 on OpenAlexaff
David Malkin

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes & Cancer · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related Molecular Pathways
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLi–Fraumeni syndromeGermlineGeneticsPhenotypeGermline mutationCancerGenotypeGenotype-phenotype distinctionMutationMedicineBiologyGeneBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a classic cancer predisposition disorder that is commonly associated with germline mutations of the p53 tumor suppressor gene. Examination of the wide spectrum of adult-onset and childhood cancers and the distribution of p53 mutations has led to a greater understanding of cancer genotype-phenotype correlations. However, the complex LFS phenotype is not readily explained by the simple identification of germline p53 mutations in affected individuals. Recent work has identified genetic events that modify the LFS phenotype. These include intragenic polymorphisms, mutations/polymorphisms of genes in the p53 regulatory pathway, as well as more global events such as aberrant copy number variation and telomere attrition. These genetic events may, in part, explain the breadth of tumor histiotypes within and across LFS families, the apparent accelerated age of onset within families, and the range of clinical outcomes among affected family members. This review will examine the clinical and genetic definitions of LFS and offer insight into how lessons learned from the study of this rare disorder may inform similar questions in other familial cancer syndromes.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations508
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes & CancerSame topicCancer-related Molecular PathwaysFrench-language works237,207