MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193416718 · doi:10.1038/s41523-021-00315-8

Current gene panels account for nearly all homologous recombination repair-associated multiple-case breast cancer families

2021· article· en· W3193416718 on OpenAlexafffund
Thibaut Matis, Nadia Zayed, Bouchra Labraki, Manon de Ladurantaye, Théophane A. Matis, José Camacho Valenzuela, Nancy Hamel, Adrienne Atayan, Bárbara Rivera, Yuval Tabach, Patricia N. Tonin, Alexandre Orthwein, Anne‐Marie Mes‐Masson, Zaki El Haffaf, William D. Foulkes, Paz Polak

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Breast Cancer · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteFondation du cancer du sein du QuébecCancer Research Society
KeywordsHomologous recombinationProbandBreast cancerGeneHomologous chromosomeGeneticsBiologyRecombinationDNA repairCancerMutation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It was hypothesized that variants in underexplored homologous recombination repair (HR) genes could explain unsolved multiple-case breast cancer (BC) families. We investigated HR deficiency (HRD)-associated mutational signatures and second hits in tumor DNA from familial BC cases. No candidates genes were associated with HRD in 38 probands previously tested negative with gene panels. We conclude it is unlikely that unknown HRD-associated genes explain a large fraction of unsolved familial BC.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Breast CancerSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207