MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118222215 · doi:10.1093/jnci/djn499

Prediction of Lynch Syndrome in Consecutive Patients With Colorectal Cancer

2009· article· en· W2118222215 on OpenAlexaff
Roger C. Green, Patrick S. Parfrey, Michael O. Woods, H. Banfield Younghusband

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLynch syndromeMSH6PMS2MLH1MSH2Colorectal cancerDNA mismatch repairMutationMedicinePopulationGeneticsGene mutationInternal medicineOncologyCancerMutation rateBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is caused by inherited mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes (primarily MSH2, MLH1, MSH6, and PMS2) and is one of the most prevalent inherited cancer syndromes. Several models have been developed to predict the occurrence of Lynch syndrome in high-risk patients and families, but it is not known how these models compare with one another or how they perform for colorectal cancer patients from the general population. We used data from such patients to test the ability of four models--Leiden, MMRpredict, PREMM(1,2), and MMRpro--to distinguish between those who did and did not carry DNA mismatch repair gene mutations. METHODS: We studied a consecutive series of 725 patients who were younger than 75 years at colorectal cancer diagnosis and whose DNA mismatch repair gene mutation status was available; 18 of the 725 patients carried such a mutation. For each model, we calculated the risk score, compared the observed number of mutations with the expected number, and determined the receiver operating characteristics. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Although all four models overestimated the probability of a mutation (range = 1.2- to 4.3-fold), especially in low-risk patients, they could discriminate between carriers and noncarriers of a mismatch repair mutation. The areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves from the four models ranged from 0.91 to 0.96. Carriers of mutations in the MSH6 or PMS2 genes had lower risk scores than carriers of MSH2 or MLH1 mutations. For example, the MMRpredict model gave median risk scores of 24% and 94% (P < .015) for MSH6-PMS2 and MSH2-MLH1 mutation carriers, respectively. For the Leiden, MMRpredict, and PREMM(1,2) models, correcting the risk scores for bias introduced by family size improved their power to discriminate between carriers and noncarriers. After correcting for family size, the best model was MMRpredict, which achieved a sensitivity of 94% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 73% to 99%) and a specificity of 91% (95% CI = 88% to 93%) and identified a smaller proportion of patients than the revised Bethesda criteria as those who should undergo additional molecular or immunohistochemical testing (11% vs 50%). CONCLUSION: MMRpredict was the best-performing model for identifying colorectal cancer patients who are at high risk of carrying a DNA mismatch repair gene mutation and thus should be screened for Lynch syndrome.

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)0.007
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations97
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer InstituteSame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207