Colon carcinogenesis in liver‐specific IGF‐I‐deficient (LID) mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Circulating insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) is associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer. It is not clear, however, whether IGF-1 plays a direct causative role in colon carcinogenesis or whether it mediates the known promoting effects of insulin. The objective of this study was to determine the role of IGF-1 in colon carcinogenesis using liver-specific IGF-I deficient (LID) mice that exhibit 70% reductions in circulating IGF-I. Female and male LID mice were treated with the colon-specific carcinogen azoxymethane to induce aberrant crypt foci (ACF) or colon tumors. Female LID mice developed significantly fewer ACF and had normal insulin levels compared to controls. Male LID mice, however, were hyperinsulinemic and exhibited no significant differences in ACF development compared to controls. In the tumor study, both male and female LID mice were hyperinsulinemic and had no significant differences in tumor incidence or multiplicity compared to their respective controls. There was a significant 25% reduction in tumor size, however, in both male and female LID mice compared to controls. These data suggest that IGF-I deficiency attenuates the promoting effect of insulin on colon carcinogenesis and that IGF-I is an independent promoter of the growth of established tumors. Our findings implicate both IGF-I and insulin as important promoters of colon cancer development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".