MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4317042411 · doi:10.3390/curroncol30020100

A Case of Sporadic Multiple Colonic Polyps in a Young Woman

2023· article· en· W4317042411 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seung Ho Sin, Jung‐Hwan Yoon, Sang Woo Kim, Won Sang Park, Hiun Suk Chae

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsColorectal cancerAdenomatous polyposis coliAdenomaMedicineColorectal adenomaMutationCarcinogenesisCancer researchFamilial adenomatous polyposisGeneCancerPathologyInternal medicineBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sporadic colorectal cancer arises from an adenoma. As mutations in the adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) tumor suppressor gene have been frequently detected in colorectal adenomas, the APC gene is considered a gatekeeper in colorectal carcinogenesis. Here, we report a case of sporadic multiple colonic adenomas that were accompanied by an APC-truncating mutation. A 25-year-old Korean woman presented with dozens of incidentally found colonic polyps. There was no family history of colorectal polyposis or colon cancer in her first or second-degree relatives. All the polyps were removed endoscopically at once, and their pathological examination revealed tubular adenoma. Mutational analysis showed a 2-bp deletion mutation at codon 443, which generates a premature stop codon at codon 461 of the APC gene, and Western blot analysis demonstrated both wild-type and truncated APC proteins in adenoma tissue. This study suggests that a single truncating mutation of the APC gene may initiate adenoma formation.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designCase report
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer→French-language works237,207→