Non-syndromic and Syndromic Defects in Children with Extracranial Germ Cell Tumors (eGCT): Data of 2,610 Children Registered with the German MAKEI 96/MAHO 98 Registry Compared to the General Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GCTs are developmental tumors and likely to reflect ontogenetic and teratogenetic determinants. The objective was to identify syndromes with or without congenital anomalies and non-syndromic defects as potential risk factors. Patients with extracranial GCTs (eGCTs) registered in MAKEI 96/MAHO 98 between 1996 and 2017 were used. According to Teilum's holistic concept malignant and benign teratomas were registered. We used a case control study design with Orphanet as a reference group for syndromic defects and the Mainz birth registry (EUROCAT) for congenital anomalies at birth. Co-occurring genetic syndromes and/or congenital anomalies were assessed accordingly. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated and p-values for Fisher’s exact test with Bonferroni correction if needed. A strong association was confirmed for Swyer (OR 338.6, 95% CI 43.7-2623.6) and Currarino syndrome (OR 34.2, 95% CI 13.2-88.6). We additionally found 17 isolated cases of eGCT with a wide range of syndromes, however not significantly associated following Bonferroni correction. All these cases pertained to girls. Regarding non-syndromic defects, no association with eGCTs could be identified. In our study we confirmed a strong association for Swyer and Currarino syndromes with additional congenital anomalies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".