MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140959656 · doi:10.1093/jnci/djs288

Association Between Germline HOXB13 G84E Mutation and Risk of Prostate Cancer

2012· article· en· W2140959656 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mohammad R. Akbari, John Trachtenberg, Jye‐Chang Lee, Samantha Tam, Robert G. Bristow, Andrew Loblaw, Steven A. Narod, R. Nam

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsProstate cancerOdds ratioMedicineConfidence intervalInternal medicineGermline mutationOncologyProstate biopsyProstateCancerCase-control studyGynecologyMutationGeneticsBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, a G84E mutation in HOXB13, a gene involved in prostate development, was shown to be strongly associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer. To confirm this association in a screening setting, we conducted a case-control study and sequenced germline DNA from peripheral leukocytes of 1843 men diagnosed with prostate cancer (case subjects) and 2225 men without prostate cancer (control subjects) for mutations in HOXB13. Subjects (aged 40-94 years) were prescreened and underwent a prostate biopsy at two tertiary care centers in Canada. The frequency of HOXB13 variants was determined in case subjects and control subjects by race, and odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were based on 2×2 table analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided. Twelve men of white race were identified to be carriers of the G84E mutation. The G84E mutation was more frequent among white case subjects than among white control subjects (10 of 1525 [0.7%] vs 2 of 1757 [0.1%], P = .01) and was associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer (unadjusted odds ratio = 5.8, 95% confidence interval = 1.3 to 26.5, P = .01).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations74
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer InstituteSame topicCancer-related molecular mechanisms researchFrench-language works237,207