MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MG-141 A further report of paediatric cancer and cleidocranial dysplasia raises the possibility of a causative association of weak effect

2015· article· en· W2410472750 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Lehman, Edward Tseng, Michelle Ning, Zheyuan Zong, Seong-Hwan Jun

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Genetics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCleidocranial DysplasiaMedicineCancerDysplasiaMissense mutationRelative riskOncologyInternal medicineMutationGeneticsConfidence intervalBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> RUNX2 can act as both oncogene and tumour suppressor. In cleidocranial dysplasia (CCD), RUNX2 mutations cause haploinsufficiency of the protein. We encountered a young man with CCD who developed lymphoma at age 16 years and melanoma in his early 20s. Sequencing of RUNX2 identified a novel, damaging and conserved missense mutation (p. Arg186Ile) not present in either parent. <h3>Objectives</h3> We sought evidence to support or refute a greater than expected cumulative incidence of paediatric cancer in CCD. <h3>Design/method</h3> We reviewed English language descriptions of individuals with CCD to identify the proportion with paediatric cancer. We compared this frequency to the expected background frequency of cancer in the paediatric age range. We also performed a sensitivity analysis to determine a reporting bias threshold at which a perceived association would be spurious. <h3>Results</h3> Six of 1242 individuals with CCD had paediatric cancer. One would expect only 1 in 6250 individuals to have cancer prior to age 20 (SEER CDC data). The estimated relative risk is 30-fold based on this data. If, however, a co-occurrence of CCD and paediatric cancer is 15 times more likely to be reported in the literature than an occurence without cancer, then the observation of increased relative risk is spurious. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Our data suggests a role for RUNX2 in some paediatric cancers and a possible increased relative risk, but low absolute risk, for cancer in CCD. A CCD registry with prospective data collection may be the best means to determine actual risk of paediatric cancer in CCD.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.359 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical GeneticsSame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207