MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145032084 · doi:10.1111/cge.12529

Mismatch repair genes founder mutations and cancer susceptibility in Lynch syndrome

2014· review· en· W2145032084 on OpenAlexaff
Giovanni Ponti, Ester Castellsagué, Cristel Ruini, Antonio Percesepe, Aldo Tomasi

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Genetics · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLynch syndromeGeneticsMSH2PMS2BiologyFounder effectMSH6MLH1DNA mismatch repairMutationGeneAlleleDNA repairHaplotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Founder mutations in specific populations are common in several Mendelian disorders. They are shared by apparently unrelated families that inherited them from a common ancestor that existed hundreds to thousands of years ago. They have been proven to impact in molecular diagnostics strategies in specific populations, where they can be assessed as the first screening step and, if positive, avoid further expensive gene scanning. In Lynch syndrome (LS), a dominantly inherited colorectal cancer disease, more than 50 founder pathogenic mutations have been described so far in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2). We here provide a comprehensive summary of the founder mutations found in the MMR genes and an overview of their main characteristics. At a time when high-throughput strategies are being introduced in the molecular diagnostics of cancer, genetic testing for founder mutations can complement next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies to most efficiently identify MMR gene mutations in any given population. Additionally, special attention is paid to MMR founder mutations with interesting anthropological significance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations60
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical GeneticsSame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207