MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116799256 · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70265-5

Risk of colorectal and endometrial cancers in EPCAM deletion-positive Lynch syndrome: a cohort study

2010· article· en· W2116799256 on OpenAlexaff
Marlies Kempers, Roland P. Kuiper, Charlotte W. Ockeloen, Pierre O. Chappuis, Pierre Hutter, Nils Rahner, Hans K. Schackert, Verena Steinke, Elke Holinski‐Feder, Monika Morak, Matthias Kloor, Reinhard Büttner, Eugène T.P. Verwiel, J. Han van Krieken, Irıs D. Nagtegaal, Monique Goossens, Rachel S. van der Post, Renée C. Niessen, Rolf H. Sijmons, Irma Kluijt, Frans B.L. Hogervorst, Edward M. Leter, Cora M. Aalfs, E. Redeker, Frederik J. Hes, Carli M.J. Tops, Bernadette P. M. van Nesselrooij, Mariëlle van Gijn, E. Gómez, David J. Bunyan, Sapna Syngal, Elena M. Stoffel, Julie O. Culver, Melanie R. Palomares, Tracy Graham, Lea Velsher, J. Papp, Edith Oláh, Tsun Leung Chan, Suet Yi Leung, Ad Geurts van Kessel, Lambertus A. Kiemeney, Marjolijn J. L. Ligtenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Oncology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsLynch syndromeEndometrial cancerColorectal cancerCohortOncologyMedicineInternal medicineGynecologyCancerDNA mismatch repair

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.002
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations293
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet OncologySame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207