MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981020486 · doi:10.4161/cc.9.6.11033

The Met receptor tyrosine kinase and basal breast cancer

2010· review· en· W1981020486 on OpenAlexafffund
Marisa G. Ponzo, Morag Park

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Cycle · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Cells and Metastasis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBreast cancerBiologyEstrogen receptorReceptor tyrosine kinaseCancer researchCarcinogenesisTyrosine kinaseCancerInternal medicineOncologyReceptorMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast cancer is a complex disease that comprises cancers of distinct biologies and responses to treatment. Clinical management relies on traditional clinicopathological parameters, involving lymph node status, histological grade, as well as expression of the estrogen receptor or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. Molecular pathology as well as protein and gene expression profiling have divided breast tumors into molecular subtypes associated with different clinical outcomes. One of these, defined as basal breast cancer, is associated with poor prognosis. Molecular mechanisms involved in the induction of basal breast cancer are poorly understood and targeted therapies for this subtype are lacking. Recent evidence using murine models identified a role for the Met receptor tyrosine kinase in the induction of murine mammary tumors with characteristics of human basal breast cancers. Moreover, elevated Met protein and RNA is associated with human basal tumors and poor outcome. These studies identify a link between the Met receptor tyrosine kinase, epithelial mesenchymal transition, and basal breast cancer. In this review, we provide an overview of murine Met models in relation to the spectrum of mouse models of breast cancer and a role for the Met receptor in basal breast cancer tumorigenesis.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.316
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell CycleSame topicCancer Cells and MetastasisFrench-language works237,207