MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Surveillance recommendations for patients with germline TP53 mutations

2015· review· en· W572224498 on OpenAlexaff
Mandy L. Ballinger, Gillian Mitchell, David M. Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Oncology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related Molecular Pathways
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGermlineGermline mutationMutationGeneticsMEDLINEComputational biologyGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Li-Fraumeni syndrome is associated with germline TP53 mutations and carriers have a high lifetime risk of cancer, the most common being sarcoma, breast cancer, brain tumors, adrenocortical carcinoma and leukemia. Germline TP53 mutation carriers are increasingly being identified as more genomic sequencing is performed in both clinical and research settings. There is a pressing clinical need for effective cancer risk management approaches in this group. RECENT FINDINGS: Current clinical surveillance guidelines mainly focus on breast and bowel cancer risk with little consideration for the other cancers common to the syndrome. Imaging technologies are such that the utilization of whole-body MRI imaging for surveillance is viable. Globally, several research groups have included whole-body MRI along with other diagnostic measures in formulating surveillance protocols for TP53 mutation carriers. Early reports suggest a survival benefit. SUMMARY: Surveillance protocols for TP53 mutation carriers have the potential to improve outcomes in individuals and families. Further research is needed to guide the development of an effective and comprehensive surveillance schedule.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 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

Citations42
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in OncologySame topicCancer-related Molecular PathwaysFrench-language works237,207