MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809103371 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noy059.012

ATRT-13. CANCER PREDISPOSITION AMONG CHILDREN WITH RHABDOID TUMORS: A SINGLE-CENTRE RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW

2018· article· en· W2809103371 on OpenAlexaff
Hallie Coltin, Anna Pan, David Malkin, Annie Huang, Catherine Goudie

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSMARCB1GermlineGenetic testingMedicineAtypical teratoid rhabdoid tumorFamily historyReferralGermline mutationRetrospective cohort studyGenetic predispositionCancerMedical geneticsPediatricsOncologyMutationInternal medicineGeneticsBiologyFamily medicineGeneImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rhabdoid tumor predisposition syndrome (RTPS) from SMARCB1 germline mutations must be ruled out in children with rhabdoid tumors (RT). The aim was to describe the diagnostic details of children with RT, genetic referral practices, and rates of SMARCB1 germline pathogenic mutations, and to compare clinical features of children with and without RTPS. The medical charts of sequential children diagnosed with RT at the Hospital for Sick Children from 1995–2016 were reviewed for the diagnostic details, family histories, and genetic testing results. Fifty-nine children diagnosed with RT at a mean age of 37.6 months were included. Atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumors represented 73% of the tumors. Of the patients with family histories documented, 17% were suspicious for cancer predisposition. Of the 31 patients with genetic testing results, 12 had SMARCB1 pathogenic mutations. The mean age of diagnosis was 12.0 months for children with RTPS compared to 37.6 months in those without RTPS. In children presenting at ≤ 12 months of age, 64% were subsequently diagnosed with germline SMARCB1 mutations. When the age limit was increased to ≤ 36 months, the rate of SMARCB1 mutations was 42%, while this rate was 25% in those aged > 36 months. Rates of SMARCB1 germline mutations increase with younger age, but the elevated rates of RTPS detection in this cohort for all ages support the practice that all children diagnosed with RT should undergo genetic testing to investigate for RTPS, even if the family history is not suggestive of inherited cancer.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 venueNeuro-OncologySame topicChromatin Remodeling and CancerFrench-language works237,207