MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7019812738

Implementation of a lynch syndrome screening protocol on colorectal cancer patients 70 years of age and under: the initial Manitoba screening experience

2017· dissertation· en· W7019812738 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLynch syndromeMicrosatellite instabilityColorectal cancerDNA mismatch repairGermline mutationCancerGermlineMutation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Assess the ability of a Manitoba instituted Lynch Syndrome (LS), an autosomal dominant cancer syndrome, screening protocol to identify carriers in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients as compared to literature. Methods: Three hundred sixteen CRC resection tumour cases, patient age 70, were screened for a LS profile over 18 months. Immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair deficiency (MMRD), v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 sequencing, and microsatellite instability strategies were used to determine a likelihood of LS. Genetic counselling was recommended to suspected carriers. Results: MMRD was reported in 50(16%) cases; 3(0.9%) deficient (d) MutS homolog 6 (MSH6), 8(2.5%), d MutS protein homolog 2 (MSH2)/dMSH6, 5(1.6%) d Postmeiotic segregation increased 2 (PMS2), and 34(10.7%) d MutL homolog 1 (MLH1)/dPMS2. Seventeen patients underwent germline testing; 9(2.8%) LS mutations were identified. Conclusion: A confirmed LS mutation in 2.8% of cases is a percentage comparable to literature and supports continued protocol utilization.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207