MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164440220 · doi:10.1002/pros.21443

Chromosomes 4 and 8 implicated in a genome wide SNP linkage scan of 762 prostate cancer families collected by the ICPCG

2011· article· en· W2164440220 on OpenAlexafffund
Lingyi Lu, Géraldine Cancel‐Tassin, Antoine Valéri, Olivier Cussenot, Ethan M. Lange, Kathleen A. Cooney, James M. Farnham, Nicola J. Camp, Lisa Cannon‐Albright, Teuvo L.J. Tammela, Johanna Schleutker, Josef Hoegel, Kathleen Herkommer, Christiane Maier, Walther Vogel, Fredrik Wiklund, Monica Emanuelsson, Henrik Grönberg, Kathleen E. Wiley, Sarah D. Isaacs, Patrick C. Walsh, Brian T. Helfand, Donghui Kan, William J. Catàlona, Janet L. Stanford, Liesel M. FitzGerald, Bo Johanneson, Kerry Deutsch, Laura McIntosh, Elaine A. Ostrander, Stephen N. Thibodeau, Shannon K. McDonnell, Scott J. Hebbring, Daniel J. Schaid, Alice S. Whittemore, Ingrid Oakley‐Girvan, Chih‐Lin Hsieh, Isaac J. Powell, Joan E. Bailey‐Wilson, Cheryl D. Cropp, Claire L. Simpson, John D. Carpten, Daniela Seminara, Shusen Zheng, Jianfen Xu, Graham G. Giles, Gianluca Severi, John L. Hopper, Dallas R. English, William D. Foulkes, Lovise Mæhle, Pål Møller, Michael D. Badzioch, Steve Edwards, Michelle Guy, Rosalind A. Eeles, Douglas Easton, William B. Isaacs

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Prostate · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Cancer InstituteNational Human Genome Research InstituteNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthUniversität UlmCancer Council VictoriaUniversity of TorontoDeutsche KrebshilfeTampereen YliopistoUtah State UniversityWomen's College HospitalKarolinska InstitutetPirkanmaan SairaanhoitopiiriCancerfondenUniversity of MelbourneCancer Research UKHuntsman Cancer FoundationU.S. Department of DefenseU.S. Public Health ServiceUniversité LavalUniversity of WashingtonAssociation pour la Recherche sur le CancerNational Center for Research ResourcesFred Hutchinson Cancer Research CenterUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterNorthwestern UniversityMcGill University
KeywordsGenome ScanLinkage (software)Genetic linkageGeneticsMicrosatelliteMultiplexBiologySNPProstate cancerSNP arrayGenomeSingle-nucleotide polymorphismComputational biologyGeneCancerGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In spite of intensive efforts, understanding of the genetic aspects of familial prostate cancer (PC) remains largely incomplete. In a previous microsatellite-based linkage scan of 1,233 PC families, we identified suggestive evidence for linkage (i.e., LOD ≥ 1.86) at 5q12, 15q11, 17q21, 22q12, and two loci on 8p, with additional regions implicated in subsets of families defined by age at diagnosis, disease aggressiveness, or number of affected members. METHODS: In an attempt to replicate these findings and increase linkage resolution, we used the Illumina 6000 SNP linkage panel to perform a genome-wide linkage scan of an independent set of 762 multiplex PC families, collected by 11 International Consortium for Prostate Cancer Genetics (ICPCG) groups. RESULTS: Of the regions identified previously, modest evidence of replication was observed only on the short arm of chromosome 8, where HLOD scores of 1.63 and 3.60 were observed in the complete set of families and families with young average age at diagnosis, respectively. The most significant linkage signals found in the complete set of families were observed across a broad, 37 cM interval on 4q13-25, with LOD scores ranging from 2.02 to 2.62, increasing to 4.50 in families with older average age at diagnosis. In families with multiple cases presenting with more aggressive disease, LOD scores over 3.0 were observed at 8q24 in the vicinity of previously identified common PC risk variants, as well as MYC, an important gene in PC biology. CONCLUSIONS: These results will be useful in prioritizing future susceptibility gene discovery efforts in this common 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)0.000
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe ProstateSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207