MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7101277461

ral ssBioMed CentBMC Clinical Pathology Open AcceResearch article Age-related differences in 1p and 19q deletions in oligodendrogliomas

2016· article· en· W7101277461 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIntellectual Property and Patents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoss of heterozygosityOligodendrogliomaChromosomeAlleleCytogeneticsOligodendroglial TumorMicrosatelliteGlioma
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Recent reports indicate that anaplastic oligodendrogliomas frequently show allelic losses on chromosome arms 1p and 19q, and that these deletions are associated with better chemotherapeutic response and overall patient survival. Because of the diversified genetic makeup of the population and the centralized provincial referral system for brain tumor patients in Manitoba, the epidemiological features of such tumors sometimes differ from the published data acquired from non-community based settings. In this study, we assessed the prevalence of allelic deletions for chromosome arms 1p and 19q in anaplastic and in low-grade oligodendrogliomas in the Manitoba population. Methods: Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) analysis of brain tumors was carried out using 4 microsatellite markers (D1S508, D1S2734, D19S219 and D19S412) and a PCR based assay. The tumors were consecutively acquired during the period September 1999–March 2001 and a total of 63 tumors were assessed. Results: We found that allelic loss of chromosome 1p and 19q was higher in oligodendrogliomas than in other diffuse gliomas and that for anaplastic oligodendrogliomas, younger patients exhibited

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)0.001
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.004

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 head0.321
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.021 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntellectual Property and PatentsFrench-language works237,207