MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159466094 · doi:10.1002/gcc.22957

<scp>MLH1</scp> epimutation is a rare mechanism for Lynch syndrome: A case report and review of the literature

2021· review· en· W3159466094 on OpenAlexaff
Roman Zyla, Tracy Graham, Melyssa Aronson, Lea Velsher, Miralem Mrkonjic, Gulisa Turashvili

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes Chromosomes and Cancer · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreSinai Health SystemUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLynch syndromePMS2MLH1Endometrial cancerGermline mutationMicrosatellite instabilityCancer researchGermlineMSH6MedicineCancerDNA mismatch repairGeneticsOncologyColorectal cancerInternal medicineBiologyMutationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endometrial carcinoma is one of the prototypical malignancies associated with Lynch syndrome, an inherited cancer syndrome most commonly caused by germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes, although rare alternative mechanisms also exist. In this report, we describe a patient first diagnosed with colorectal cancer at age 33, then vulvar squamous cell carcinoma, facial sebaceous adenoma/sebaceoma, and finally endometrial carcinoma at age 52. All tumors were MLH1/PMS2-deficient by immunohistochemistry, and MLH1 promoter methylation was identified in the endometrial cancer. Germline MLH1 testing was negative for pathogenic variants, but she was subsequently diagnosed with Lynch syndrome secondary to a germline monoallelic constitutional epimutation of the MLH1 promoter. Identification of patients displaying a Lynch syndrome phenotype but lacking germline MMR mutations is important to avoid delays in the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome as well as the initiation of appropriate cancer screening and genetic counseling.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.306 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes Chromosomes and CancerSame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207