MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510895869 · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312773

Lack of evidence for germline <i>RNF43</i> mutations in patients with serrated polyposis syndrome from a large multinational study

2016· letter· en· W2510895869 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel D. Buchanan, Mark Clendenning, Zhuoer Li, Jenna R. Stewart, Sharelle Joseland, Sonja Woodall, Julie Arnold, Kara Semotiuk, Melyssa Aronson, Spring Holter, Steven Gallinger, Mark A. Jenkins, Kevin Sweet, Finlay Macrae, Ingrid Winship, Susan Parry, Christophe Rosty

Bibliographic record

VenueGut · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermlineGermline mutationGeneticsMultinational corporationMutationMedicineBiologyBioinformaticsGenePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is characterised by the occurrence of multiple serrated polyps in the large bowel. Defined clinically by the 2010 revised WHO, SPS is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) for affected individuals and their first-degree relatives. Yan et al 1 recently reported their findings from whole-exome sequencing (WES) of six individuals with SPS from four families, identifying a single family carrying a germline likely pathogenic variant in RNF43 (c.953-1 G>A, c.953_954delAG, p.E318fs). In this family, six carriers were identified, five of whom met the WHO criteria for SPS. This adds to two previous reports of germline mutations within RNF43 in individuals with SPS or who developed multiple serrated polyps.2 ,3 The current study by Yan et al 1 also importantly showed loss of second wildtype allele in 16 serrated polyps, five adenomatous polyps, and in the rectal adenocarcinoma from carriers through somatic single nucleotide variants or loss of heterozygosity, adding further weight to a potential role of RNF43 in the development of colonic serrated neoplasia. We present …

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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations60
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGutSame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207