MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120514166 · doi:10.2217/fon-2020-0544

Prognostic Significance of <i>CTNNB1</i> Mutation in Recurrence of Sporadic Desmoid Tumors

2021· review· en· W3120514166 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lifang Guo, Xin Wang, Benshan Xu, Ren Lang, Bin Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture Oncology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSoft tissue tumor case studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMutationInternal medicineCochrane LibraryOdds ratioOncologyMeta-analysisPathologyGastroenterologyGeneticsGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: Desmoid tumor (DT) is a rare, locally aggressive benign neoplasm with a high recurrence rate. The majority of sporadic DTs are associated with mutations in CTNNB1, but whether CTNNB1 mutations are associated with the risk of DT recurrence remains unclear. The goal of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the association between CTNNB1 mutation and recurrence in surgically treated DT patients. Methods: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library were systematically searched. The outcome of interest was the risk of recurrence. The number of patients with CTNNB1 mutation and the number of recurrences they developed were recorded and compared. The quality of these studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Odds ratios and variances were calculated and pooled. Results: A total of eight studies were identified including 637 patients. S45F-mutated DTs were more likely to recur compared with wild type, T41A and other mutated DTs. However, there were no statistically significant differences in the rate of recurrence between wild type and T41A mutation or other mutation. Conclusions: Among CTNNB1 mutations, the mutation S45F is a high-risk factor for recurrence of DT and may be a predictive marker for the recurrence of sporadic DT.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.333 · 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
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuture OncologySame topicSoft tissue tumor case studiesFrench-language works237,207