MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Detection of MYC gene rearrangements by conventional cytogenetics and fluorescent in situ hybridization in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia cases

2015· article· en· W2403773235 on OpenAlexaff
Ayşe Çırakoğlu, Seda Eren, Dilhan Kuru, Zafer Başlar, Ömer Devecioğlu, Meliha Nalçacı, Seniha Hacıhanefioğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Experimental Investigations · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCytogeneticsFluorescence in situ hybridizationKaryotypeInterphaseBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>Locus (genetics)PathologyLymphoblastic LeukemiaMolecular biologyLeukemiaGeneChromosomeGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate rearrangements at the region of MYC gene by conventional cytogenetics and interphase FISH methods in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Methods: The study was carried out on bone marrow specimens of 25 ALL patients who were referred to our laboratory. Fourteen children and 11 adult ALL cases were examined. Conventional cytogenetic analysis was performed using G banding technique and fluorescence in situ hybridization technique was applied using MYC breakapart probe (Cytocell). Results: Totally, in 2 of 25 cases available metaphases were not obtained. While in 9 of 23 cases were found to have normal karyotype (39.1%), numerical chromosomal abnormalities were detected in 6 cases, structural abnormalities in 4 and both numerical and structural abnormalities were found in 4 cases. In one case (4%) t(8;14)(q24;q32) was found as a cytogenetic aberration in which MYC gene locus involved. FISH analysis was performed successfully in all cases and MYC rearrangements were found in 3 cases (12%) by FISH method. Conclusion: By comparing two techniques, it was observed that FISH method showed more sensitivity, however conventional cytogenetic techniques were also effective to reveal all changes of the chromosomes. Therefore, we concluded that it would be more efficient to use of these two techniques together.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical and Experimental InvestigationsSame topicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia researchFrench-language works237,207