MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968242673 · doi:10.1309/6rt941w1g6gdehue

Prognostic Value of Cell Cycle and Apoptosis Regulatory Proteins in Mismatch Repair–Proficient Colorectal Cancer

2007· article· en· W1968242673 on OpenAlexaff
Luigi Tornillo, Alessandro Lugli, Inti Zlobec, Niels Willi, Kathrin Glatz, Frank Serge Lehmann, Hanspeter Spichtin, Robert Maurer, Dimitra Stoios, Guido Sauter, Luigi Terracciano

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColorectal cancerTissue microarrayCancer researchCell cycleImmunohistochemistryDNA mismatch repairMedicineOncologyUnivariate analysisCancerTumor progressionApoptosisMicroarrayPhenotypeInternal medicineBiologyGene expressionMultivariate analysisGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cell cycle and apoptosis regulatory proteins are markers of tumor progression in colorectal cancer. In a series of 1,274 mismatch repair-proficient colorectal cancers, immunohistochemical analysis of p21, p27, p53, and bcl-2 expression was performed using the tissue microarray technique. In univariate analysis, p21 expression was associated with tumor location and pN0; p27 expression with tumor location, lower tumor grade, early pT, and pN; p53 expression with tumor location; and bcl-2 with early pT and pN. Expression of p27 identified subgroups with worse prognosis in pT3 N0 and pT3 N+ patients. None of the 4 tumor markers were independent prognostic indicators of survival. The multimarker phenotypes p21/p27/p53 and p21/p27/bcl-2 were associated with survival. In mismatch repair-proficient colorectal cancer, p27 expression is associated with a better prognosis, and pT, pN, and vascular invasion are independent prognostic factors. In addition, multimarker phenotypes are useful to identify colorectal cancer subgroups with different prognoses.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations24
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical PathologySame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207