The Uniqueness and Ordinariness of Cancer Origin and Pathogenesis: New Epidemiological, Clinical and Preventive Perspectives
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The article is devoted to a try to reconsider a main paradigm of contemporary oncology, the hypothesis of cancer metastasis. METHODS: The investigation was based on the reassessment of well known data about cancer epidemiology and clinical manifestations from the viewpoint of recent all-pathological, immunological, genetic and evolutionary discoveries. RESULTS: The potentially cancerous cell clones settled a human body as a result of crossbreeding between persons with partially different genomes. The clones appeared in the body before postnatal ontogenesis and for many decades exist in it as multiple but smallest stochastically distributed cell populations. But at relevant time of individual life (mainly after 40 years of age), according to own specific programs of the clone ontogenesis, it begin to multiple uncontrolled thus initiating the cancerous growth being unregulated by usual cyto-ecological agents owned by affected body. Its cells come into sight as constitutionally immune to normal regulators of cell reproduction and tissue growth. CONCLUSIONS: The new notion provides a framework for understanding the epidemic nature of cancer and its rising incidence both in the developed world and in developing countries. It forces also to reassess the means and methods of cancer healing. What is more, it accents the possibility of genetic methods for the prevention of epidemic spread of the disease. KEYWORDS: Cancer epidemiology; Cancer pathogenesis; Genetics of cancer origin; Genetic immunity; Molecular physiological regulation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it