MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905991105 · doi:10.1038/s41388-018-0623-3

Recurrent somatic BRAF insertion (p.V504_R506dup): a tumor marker and a potential therapeutic target in pilocytic astrocytoma

2018· article· en· W2905991105 on OpenAlexafffund
Fida Khater, Sylvie Langlois, Pauline Cassart, Anne-Marie Roy, Mathieu Lajoie, Jasmine Healy, Chantal Richer, Pascal St-Onge, Nelson Piché, Sébastien Perreault, Sonia Cellot, Monia Marzouki, Nada Jabado, Daniel Sinnett

Bibliographic record

VenueOncogene · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma Cases
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité de MontréalCompute CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsBiologyCancer researchSomatic cellPilocytic astrocytomaMAPK/ERK pathwayMutationGliomaGermline mutationKinaseAstrocytomaGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pilocytic astrocytoma (PA) is emerging as a tumor entity with dysregulated RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling. In this study, we report the identification of a novel recurrent BRAF insertion (p.V504_R506dup) in five PA cases harboring exclusively this somatic tandem duplication. This recurrent alteration leads to an addition of three amino acids in the kinase domain of BRAF and has functional impact on activating MAPK phosphorylation. Importantly, we show that this mutation confers resistance to RAF inhibitors without changing effectiveness while downstream MEK inhibitors remain effective. Our results further emphasize the importance of BRAF alterations in PA and the need to characterize them in a given tumor as this can affect therapeutic strategies and their potential use as tumor marker in molecular diagnostics.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncogeneSame topicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma CasesFrench-language works237,207