MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1775788372 · doi:10.1186/bcr155

IGFBP-7 expression in human breast cancer and association with proliferation and cell cycle aberrations

2000· article· en· W1775788372 on OpenAlexaff
Hanna Östlund, A. M. Burger, Arun Seth, Göran Landberg

Bibliographic record

VenueBreast Cancer Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersLigue Contre le CancerHungarian Scientific Research FundAssociation pour la Recherche sur le Cancer
KeywordsSurgical oncologyBreast cancerMedicineOncologyHuman breastCell cycleAssociation (psychology)Internal medicineCancer researchCancerPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While advances in science and technology have increased options for treating breast cancer, current social trends have changed the way people deal with this disease.Women in the United States are no longer simply passive patients, but rather they are survivors, advocates and activists who are speaking up for themselves and speaking out for issues relevant to the treatment and prevention of breast cancer.As the discoveries of basic science have been translated to better clinical treatment, a new sense of hope has emerged.Quality of life now shares the spotlight with quantity of life as breast cancer has shifted from an acute to a chronic condition and as the numbers of long-term survivors increase.While this new population tends to have more optimistic expectations for survival, they are also expressing concerns about issues affecting their lives through and beyond treatment.These issues include, but are not limited to, such concerns as efficient and accurate diagnosis, the complexity of treatment decisions, access to quality cancer care, informed consent, privacy issues, availability of supportive care treatments, and effective communication skills, especially with their physicians.Survivors are also concerned about the impact of their disease on spouses and family, on fertility and sexuality issues, on their employment and (in the USA) insurability, and on their long-term survival.The identification of these increasing issues has given rise to a consumer movement that encourages a shift away from powerless victim to empowered survivor.Historically, breast cancer advocates asked for increased educational and supportive care resources.As the survivorship movement matured, new responsibilities and differing agendas arose amongst these groups.Some organizations defined their mission as one that would raise funds to support scientific research.Others felt compelled to raise awareness about early detection and treatment, controversial environmental issues, and prevention or risk reduction.A few organizations later entered the more political arenas and began lobbying for issues related to health care delivery, clinical trials access, and quality cancer care.Meanwhile, these many and varied missions are all helping to define an international agenda for breast cancer research and care, to guarantee the inclusion of consumer voices in most levels of decision-making, and to create partnerships between patients with breast cancer and the professionals who care for them.

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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.308 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBreast Cancer ResearchSame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207