MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978489875 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0810403106

Met induces diverse mammary carcinomas in mice and is associated with human basal breast cancer

2009· article· en· W1978489875 on OpenAlexaff
Carrie R. Graveel, Jack D. DeGroot, Yanli Su, Julie Koeman, Karl Dykema, Samuel Leung, Jacqueline Snider, Sherri R. Davies, Pamela J. Swiatek, Sandra Cottingham, Mark A. Watson, Matthew J. Ellis, Robert E. Sigler, Kyle A. Furge, George F. Vande Woude

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Cells and Metastasis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsBreast cancerBasal (medicine)Cancer researchCytokeratinEstrogen receptorCancerTrastuzumabBiologyOncogeneInternal medicineOncologyImmunohistochemistryMedicineEndocrinologyCell cycle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the signaling pathways that drive aggressive breast cancers is critical to the development of effective therapeutics. The oncogene MET is associated with decreased survival in breast cancer, yet the role that MET plays in the various breast cancer subtypes is unclear. We describe a knockin mouse with mutationally activated Met (Met(mut)) that develops a high incidence of diverse mammary tumors with basal characteristics, including metaplasia, absence of progesterone receptor and ERBB2 expression, and expression of cytokeratin 5. With gene expression and tissue microarray analysis, we show that high MET expression in human breast cancers significantly correlated with estrogen receptor negative/ERBB2 negative tumors and with basal breast cancers. Few treatment options exist for breast cancers of the basal or trastuzumab-resistant ERBB2 subtypes. We conclude from these studies that MET may play a critical role in the development of the most aggressive breast cancers and may be a rational therapeutic target.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations109
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicCancer Cells and MetastasisFrench-language works237,207