MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159114455 · doi:10.1111/cge.12174

Screening for <scp>BRCA1</scp> and <scp>BRCA2</scp> mutations among French‐Canadian breast cancer cases attending an outpatient clinic in Montreal

2013· article· en· W2159114455 on OpenAlexaffabout
P Ghadirian, A. Robidoux, Edgard Nassif, G. Martin, Claude Potvin, Érica Patocskai, Rami Younan, Nicole Larouche, A Venne, S Zhang, Robert E. Royer, SA Narod

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Genetics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversité de MontréalHôtel-Dieu de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerCancerOutpatient clinicDuctal carcinomaInternal medicineOncologyGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study subjects were French-Canadian women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer (incident or prevalent) who were treated and followed at a single breast cancer clinic affiliated with the Research Center of University of Montreal (CRCHUM), who were either aged less than 50 years at diagnosis or who were 50 years or older and with at least two affected first- or second-degree relatives. Subjects were tested for six founder mutations (three in BRCA1 and three in BRCA2); 1093 eligible cases were tested. Of these, 56 women (5.1%) were mutation carriers, including 43 BRCA2 carriers and 13 BRCA1 carriers. The prevalence of mutations was 5.3% for unselected women aged 50 and less and was 4.6% for familial cases over age 50. The prevalence of mutations was 3.3% for women with DCIS and was 5.3% for women with invasive cancer. It is rational to offer genetic testing to all French-Canadian women diagnosed recently or in the past with either DCIS or invasive breast cancer before age 50 or with familial breast cancer above age 50.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.299 · 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.

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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical GeneticsSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207