MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2789673993 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy008.248

A247 RECOGNITION OF LYNCH SYNDROME AMONGST NEWLY DIAGNOSED COLORECTAL CANCER AT ST. PAUL’S HOSPITAL

2018· article· en· W2789673993 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Pi, Estello Nap-Hill, Jennifer J. Telford, Robert Enns

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMicrosatellite instabilityMalignancyLynch syndromeColorectal cancerFamily historyReferralCancerInternal medicinePopulationOncologyPediatricsFamily medicineDNA mismatch repair

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer (CRC). Numerous strategies exist for identifying patients with LS. In British Columbia, clinical criteria (Amsterdam II criteria, Revised Bethesda guidelines, or the BC Cancer Agency’s Hereditary Cancer Program (BCCA HCP) criteria) are first used to determine who should undergo further first-line testing in the form of microsatellite instability (MSI) testing or immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining. Limitations exist with this strategy, including ease of access and, consequently, LS is thought to be under-recognized. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether LS is truly under-recognized when compared to the reported prevalence and, if so, identify what factors are contributing to this. A retrospective chart review of all CRC diagnosed at St. Paul’s Hospital from 2010–2013 was conducted. The list of all CRC was obtained through St. Paul’s Hospital Department of Pathology after ethics approval. Of 246 patients who met inclusion criteria, 96% (235 of 246) had a family history available in their chart. 76% (83 of 109) with a family history of malignancy were unable to recall the specific malignancy or age of diagnosis. 18% (45 of 235) were apparently only asked about a history of gastrointestinal related malignancy and 26% (65 of 246) met at least one of the three clinical criteria but only 21% (13 of 63) received further investigation in the form of MSI testing, IHC staining, or BCCA HCP referral. When compared to the entire study population, patients who received further testing had a statistically significant younger age (66 vs. 49, p<0.01), past medical history of malignancy (0.16 vs. 0.38, p=0.03) and family history of malignancy (0.46 vs. 0.92, p<0.01). Only 1.6% (4 of 246) were found to have LS compared to the reported prevalence of 2–5% of all CRC. This data supports our hypothesis that LS is under-recognized. Contributing factors include poor recollection of family histories by patients, incomplete family histories by physicians, and under-investigation for those at risk of LS which we speculate is, in part, due to difficulty accessing MSI-testing and IHC staining. The present system of reliance on histories and patients to report their family histories appear to be inadequate and need modification. A system such as that suggested by the latest AGA Guidelines where all cancers are universally tested needs implementation to minimize the risk of missing LS patients. St. Paul’s Hospital GI Research Institute

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)0.003
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 score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer→French-language works237,207→