MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170332740 · doi:10.1136/jmg.2009.074237

Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer: updated consensus guidelines for clinical management and directions for future research

2010· article· en· W2170332740 on OpenAlexafffund
Rebecca C. Fitzgerald, Richard Hardwick, David G. Huntsman, Fátima Carneiro, Parry Guilford, Vanessa Blair, Daniel C. Chung, Jeffrey A. Norton, Krish Ragunath, J. Han van Krieken, S Dwerryhouse, Carlos Caldas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Genetics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related gene regulation
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersBC Cancer AgencyUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustRadboud UniversiteitMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleMassachusetts General HospitalUniversity of LeedsCancer Research UKUniversity of NottinghamUniversità degli Studi di SienaNottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustUniversity of Otago
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerCancerInvasive lobular carcinomaGenetic testingGermline mutationFamily historyMammographyGeneral surgeryInternal medicineOncologyPathologyMutationGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

25-30% of families fulfilling the criteria for hereditary diffuse gastric cancer have germline mutations of the CDH1 (E-cadherin) gene. In light of new data and advancement of technologies, a multidisciplinary workshop was convened to discuss genetic testing, surgery, endoscopy and pathology reporting. The updated recommendations include broadening of CDH1 testing criteria such that: histological confirmation of diffuse gastric criteria is only required for one family member; inclusion of individuals with diffuse gastric cancer before the age of 40 years without a family history; and inclusion of individuals and families with diagnoses of both diffuse gastric cancer (including one before the age of 50 years) and lobular breast cancer. Testing is considered appropriate from the age of consent following counselling and discussion with a multidisciplinary team. In addition to direct sequencing, large genomic rearrangements should be sought. Annual mammography and breast MRI from the age of 35 years is recommended for women due to the increased risk for lobular breast cancer. In mutation positive individuals prophylactic total gastrectomy at a centre of excellence should be strongly considered. Protocolised endoscopic surveillance in centres with endoscopists and pathologists experienced with these patients is recommended for: those opting not to have gastrectomy, those with mutations of undetermined significance, and in those families for whom no germline mutation is yet identified. The systematic histological study of prophylactic gastrectomies almost universally shows pre-invasive lesions including in situ signet ring carcinoma with pagetoid spread of signet ring cells. Expert histopathological confirmation of these early lesions is recommended.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.006

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations542
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical GeneticsSame topicCancer-related gene regulationFrench-language works237,207