MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099316279 · doi:10.1093/mutage/ger059

COGENT (COlorectal cancer GENeTics) revisited

2012· review· en· W2099316279 on OpenAlex
Richard S. Houlston

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMutagenesis · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research UKWellcome Trust
KeywordsColorectal cancerPenetranceGeneticsAlleleCancer geneticsBiologyCancerMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many colorectal cancers (CRCs) develop in genetically susceptible individuals most of whom are not carriers of germ line mismatch repair or APC gene mutations and much of the heritable risk of CRC appears to be attributable to the co-inheritance of multiple low-risk variants. The accumulated experience to date in identifying this class of susceptibility allele has highlighted the need to conduct statistically and methodologically rigorous studies and the need for the multi-centre collaboration. This has been the motivation for establishing the COGENT (COlorectal cancer GENeTics) consortium which now includes over 20 research groups in Europe, Australia, the Americas, China and Japan actively working on CRC genetics. Here, we review the rationale for identifying low-penetrance variants for CRC and the current and future challenges for COGENT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.276 · 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