MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163572049 · doi:10.1111/cge.12313

Preventing ovarian cancer through genetic testing: a population‐based study

2013· article· en· W2163572049 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Amy Finch, Stephanie Bacopulos, Barry P. Rosen, Isabel Fan, Linda Bradley, Harvey A. Risch, Jordan Lerner‐Ellis, Steven A. Narod

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Genetics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchPublic Health OntarioLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPrevent Cancer Foundation
KeywordsOvarian cancerGenetic testingMedicineCancerPopulationOncologyMutationGenetic counselingGynecologyOophorectomyInternal medicineGeneGeneticsBiologyPathologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations, in conjunction with preventive salpingo-oophorectomy for mutation carriers, may be used to prevent a proportion of invasive ovarian cancers ('personalized medicine'). We evaluated the potential utility of this approach at a population level by reviewing the pedigree information and genetic test results from 1342 ovarian cancer patients in Ontario. Of the 1342 patients tested, 176 patients had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation; of these, 48 women would have qualified for testing prior to the development of cancer based on the eligibility criteria in place for the province of Ontario. In summary, 48 of 1342 unselected cases of ovarian cancer (3.6%) might have been prevented if genetic testing criteria were universally applied to all women in Ontario at risk for ovarian cancer.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 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

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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