A RAND/UCLA appropriateness study of the management of familial gastric cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
16 Background: Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) makes up 0.1-0.3% of all gastric cancers. Management of patients with HDGC is inconsistent and there is disagreement regarding management. Methods: A multi-disciplinary expert panel of 16 physicians from 6 countries scored 47 scenarios using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology. Appropriateness was scored from 1 (highly inappropriate) to 9 (highly appropriate). Median appropriateness scores (AS) from 1-3 were considered inappropriate, 4−6 uncertain, and 7−9, appropriate. Agreement was reached when 11 of 16 panelists scored the statement similarly. If a statement was agreed to be appropriate, it was given a necessity score (NS) in the same manner. AS and NS are reported if agreement was met. Results: Gastric cancer (GC) patients with a family history of diffuse gastric cancer (DGC), lobular breast cancer or multiple family members with GC should be referred for genetics assessment and multidisciplinary decision-making (AS 8.0). It is appropriate for patients with DGC to have CDH1 mutation testing in a family with: (1) two or more cases of GC, with at least one case of DGC diagnosed before the age of 50 (AS 8.0); (2) three or more cases of GC diagnosed at any age, one or more of which is DGC (AS 8.0); (3) a patient diagnosed with DGC and lobular breast cancer (AS 8.0); or (4) a patient diagnosed with DGC under the age of 35 (AS 7.0, NS 5.0). A prophylactic total gastrectomy should be offered to CDH1 mutation carriers 20 years or older (AS 7.0). Conclusions: The Gastric Cancer Processes of Care panelists have outlined high risk patients in whom CDH1 mutation status should be determined, and cases in which a prophylactic gastrectomy is appropriate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".