MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402737078 · doi:10.14740/wjon1896

Patterns and Frequency of Pathogenic Germline Variants Among Prostate Cancer Patients Utilizing Multi-Gene Panel Genetic Testing

2024· article· en· W4402737078 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ramiz Abu‐Hijlih, Baha’ Sharaf, Samer Salah, Hira Bani Hani, Sarah M. Nielsen, Brandie Heald, Edward D. Esplin, Rami Ghanem, Abdulla Alzibdeh, Tamer Al-Batsh, Yosra Al-Masri, Hikmat Abdel‐Razeq

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGermlineProstate cancerGenetic testingGeneOncologyInternal medicineGeneticsCancerBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Germline genetic testing (GGT) has significant implications in the management of patients with prostate cancer (PCa). Herein, we report on patterns and frequency of pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (P/LPGVs) among newly diagnosed Arab patients with PCa. Methods: Patients meeting the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) eligibility criteria for GGT were offered a 19-gene PCa panel or an expanded 84-gene multi-cancer panel. Results: During the study period, 231 patients were enrolled; 107 (46.3%) had metastatic disease at diagnosis. In total, 17 P/LPGVs were detected in 17 patients (7.4%). Among the 113 (48.9%) patients who underwent GGT with the 19-gene panel, eight (7.1%) had P/LPGVs, compared to nine (7.6%) of the 118 (51.1%) who did GGT through the expanded 84-gene panel (P = 0.88). Variant of uncertain significance (VUS) rate was higher (n = 73, 61.9%) among the group who underwent expanded 84-gene panel testing compared to those who underwent the 19-gene PCa panel (n = 35, 30.9%) (P = 0.001). P/LPGVs in DNA damage repair (DDR) genes, most frequently BRCA2 , CHEK2 and TP53 , were the most common P/LPGVs findings. Conclusion: This study is the first to characterize the germline genetic profile of an Arab population with PCa. All detected P/LPGVs were potentially actionable, with most variants able to be detected with a PCa-specific panel. World J Oncol. 2024;15(5):801-808 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon1896

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207