MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1821813067 · doi:10.3233/bd-2007-26108

Tumor Dormancy and Cancer Stem Cells: Implications for the Biology and Treatment of Breast Cancer Metastasis

2007· review· en· W1821813067 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBreast Disease · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Cells and Metastasis
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMetastasisCancerDormancyBreast cancerMedicineCancer researchCancer stem cellOncologyBiologyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast cancer remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in women, mainly due to the propensity of primary breast tumors to metastasize to regional and distant sites. Metastatic spread after the removal of a primary tumor can be difficult to identify, creating uncertainty in patients with regards to possible cancer recurrence. This is a particular problem in breast cancer, exemplified by the fact that recurrence can take place after decades of apparent disease-free survival. The mechanisms underlying tumor dormancy in breast cancer remain poorly understood, and this presents significant challenges to both experimental investigation and clinical management of breast cancer. This review will discuss what is currently known about the metastatic process and tumor dormancy, consider the growing evidence that cancer stem cells may contribute to tumor progression and dormancy, and speculate about the clinical importance and implications of this research.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.318 · 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