MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1501785654 · doi:10.1054/bjoc.1999.0941

Breast cancer incidence highest in the range of one species of house mouse, Mus domesticus

2000· article· en· W1501785654 on OpenAlexaff
T. H. M. Stewart, Richard D. Sage, Alexandre F.R. Stewart, D. William Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunosuppressionIncidence (geometry)CancerBreast cancerHouse miceBiologyHouse mouseImmunologyVirologyGeneticsZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Incidence of human breast cancer (HBC) varies geographically, but to date no environmental factor has explained this variation. Previously, we reported a 44% reduction in the incidence of breast cancer in women fully immunosuppressed following organ transplantation (Stewart et al (1995) Lancet 346: 796-798). In mice infected with the mouse mammary tumour virus (MMTV), immunosuppression also reduces the incidence of mammary tumours. DNA with 95% identity to MMTV is detected in 40% of human breast tumours (Wang et al (1995) Cancer Res 55: 5173-5179). These findings led us to ask whether the incidence of HBC could be correlated with the natural ranges of different species of wild mice. We found that the highest incidence of HBC worldwide occurs in lands where Mus domesticus is the resident native or introduced species of house mouse. Given the similar responses of humans and mice to immunosuppression, the near identity between human and mouse MTV DNA sequences, and the close association between HBC incidence and mouse ranges, we propose that humans acquire MMTV from mice. This zoonotic theory for a mouse-viral cause of HBC allows testable predictions and has potential importance in prevention.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.689
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations124
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207