MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133956309 · doi:10.1002/gcc.20413

Identification of a minimal region of loss on the short arm of chromosome 1 in Wilms tumor

2007· article· en· W2133956309 on OpenAlexaff
Yahya Tamimi, Kay Ziebart, Nancy Desaulniers, Kevin Dietrich, Paul E. Grundy

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes Chromosomes and Cancer · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsLoss of heterozygosityLocus (genetics)BiologyMicrosatelliteTumor suppressor geneWilms' tumorChromosomeGeneGeneticsMolecular biologyCancer researchCarcinogenesisAllele

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have analyzed the short arm of chromosome 1 using loss of heterozygosity (LOH) analysis in Wilms tumors (WT) to identify a minimal region of loss. 1909 WT, 22 malignant rhabdoid tumors of the kidney and 90 clear cell carcinomas of the kidney (CCSK) were subjected to LOH analysis using five markers flanked by D1S243 and D1S244. 225 WT and 4 CCSK displayed LOH for this region. A group of 16 cases which had lost heterozygosity for at least one locus but also retained heterozygosity for at least one locus within this region were more finely analyzed using a panel of 24 microsatellite markers. A minimum region of loss located between D1S2694 and D1S244 spanning an area of 3.23 Mb was found in 15/16 of these tumors. No evidence for a second locus within this region was identified. This region of loss overlaps that found in neuroblastoma and harbors candidate genes highly expressed in fetal kidney i.e., LZIC, ICAT, and DNB5. Denaturing HPLC and quantitative RT-PCR analysis of these three genes, however, revealed no aberrations in WT samples retaining heterozygosity (8 cases) or displaying LOH 1p (8 cases). Further studies are required to identify the presumed tumor suppressor gene located within this region of 1p.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes Chromosomes and CancerSame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207