MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1895673132 · doi:10.1002/hed.23969

MicroRNA expression as predictor of local recurrence risk in oral squamous cell carcinoma

2014· article· en· W1895673132 on OpenAlexaff
Federica Ganci, Andrea Sacconi, Valentina Manciocco, Isabella Sperduti, Paolo Battaglia, Renato Covello, Paola Muti, Sabrina Strano, Giuseppe Spriano, Giulia Fontemaggi, Giovanni Blandino

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicroRNA in disease regulation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityJuravinski Cancer Centre
FundersAssociazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro
KeywordsmicroRNABasal cellCarcinogenesisSquamous cell cancerOncologyCancerInternal medicineHead and neck cancerGene expression profilingBiologyHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaCancer researchMedicineGeneGene expressionGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is the sixth most common cancer worldwide with a high rate of recurrence. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are gene regulators playing an important role in oral carcinogenesis. The purpose of this study was for us to identify and functionally characterize miRNAs that predict recurrence in OSCC. METHODS: We collected 92 OSCC with their normal tissue counterparts and we performed miRNAs expression profiling on 74 OSCC and 38 normal tissues. The association between the expression of miRNAs and clinical outcome was evaluated in the follow-up of 69 patients. RESULTS: Four of the miRNAs deregulated between OSCC and normal tissues are prognostic for recurrence either when considered individually or as a group. Depletion of the expression of prognostic miRNAs inhibit the proliferation of OSCC cells CONCLUSION: MiRNAs are differentially expressed in OSCC versus normal samples. The expression of 4 prognostic miRNA signatures is able to predict recurrence risk independently from other clinical factors in OSCC. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: E189-E197, 2016.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations58
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicMicroRNA in disease regulationFrench-language works237,207