MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2727107256 · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-17-0548

Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia and Hyperparathyroid-Jaw Tumor Syndromes: Clinical Features, Genetics, and Surveillance Recommendations in Childhood

2017· review· en· W2727107256 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan D. Wasserman, Gail E. Tomlinson, Harriet Druker, Junne Kamihara, Wendy Kohlmann, Christian P. Kratz, Katherine L. Nathanson, Kristian W. Pajtler, Andreu Parareda, Surya P. Rednam, Lisa J. States, Anita Villani, Michael F. Walsh, Kristin Zelley, Joshua D. Schiffman

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMEN1PenetranceMultiple endocrine neoplasiaMedicineGermline mutationCancerGermlineGenetic testingCowden syndromePheochromocytomaHyperparathyroidismGenetic counselingPathologyInternal medicineMutationGeneticsBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Children and adolescents who present with neuroendocrine tumors are at extremely high likelihood of having an underlying germline predisposition for the multiple endocrine neoplasia (MEN) syndromes, including MEN1, MEN2A and MEN2B, MEN4, and hyperparathyroid-jaw tumor (HPT-JT) syndromes. Each of these autosomal dominant syndromes results from a specific germline mutation in unique genes: MEN1 is due to pathogenic MEN1 variants (11q13), MEN2A and MEN2B are due to pathogenic RET variants (10q11.21), MEN4 is due to pathogenic CDKN1B variants (12p13.1), and the HPT-JT syndrome is due to pathogenic CDC73 variants (1q25). Although each of these genetic syndromes share the presence of neuroendocrine tumors, each syndrome has a slightly different tumor spectrum with specific surveillance recommendations based upon tumor penetrance, including the age and location for which specific tumor types most commonly present. Although the recommended surveillance strategies for each syndrome contain similar approaches, important differences do exist among them. Therefore, it is important for caregivers of children and adolescents with these syndromes to become familiar with the unique diagnostic criteria for each syndrome, and also to be aware of the specific tumor screening and prophylactic surgery recommendations for each syndrome. Clin Cancer Res; 23(13); e123–e32. ©2017 AACR. See all articles in the online-only CCR Pediatric Oncology Series.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.404
GPT teacher head0.603
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations76
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207