MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Family history, BRCA mutations and breast cancer in Vietnamese women

2010· article· en· W2170809267 on OpenAlexaff
Ophira Ginsburg, NV Dinh, T.V. To, LH Quang, ND Linh, BTH Duong, Robert E. Royer, M Llacuachaqui, A Tulman, G. Vichodez, S Li, RR Love, SA Narod

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Genetics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerVietnameseFamily historyOvarian cancerMedicineCancerOncologyInternal medicineBRCA mutationGenetic testingGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this report is to estimate the proportions of familial and hereditary breast cancers among unselected cases of breast cancer in Vietnam. Two hundred and ninety-two unselected cases of incident breast cancer were recruited from the National Cancer Hospital, Hanoi, the largest cancer centre in Vietnam. Family histories were collected for 292 cases and a DNA sample was obtained for 259 cases. DNA samples were screened for mutations in the large exons of BRCA1 and BRCA2 using the protein truncation test and by allele-specific testing for 17 founder mutations which have been reported in other Asian populations. Complete gene sequencing was performed on two cases of familial breast cancer. Seven of 292 cases reported a relative with breast cancer and one patient reported a relative with ovarian cancer. A pathogenic BRCA mutation was detected in 2 of 259 cases; one BRCA1 carrier was diagnosed at age 51 and one BRCA2 carrier was diagnosed at age 42. Neither case reported a relative with breast or ovarian cancer. A family history of breast cancer is very uncommon among Vietnamese breast cancer patients. The frequency of pathogenic BRCA mutations in Vietnamese breast cancer patients is among the lowest reported worldwide.

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 score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.316 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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