SET complex in serous epithelial ovarian cancer
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
With low cure rates but increasing diverse treatment options that provide variable remission times, ovarian cancer is increasingly being recognized as a chronic disease. This reality indicates the need for a better understanding of factors influencing disease progression. In a previous global analysis of gene expression, we identified genes differentially expressed when comparing serous epithelial ovarian tumors of low and high malignant potential (grade 0 vs grade 3). In this analysis, 4 out of 5 members of the SET complex, SET, APE1, NM23 and HMGB2, were highly expressed in invasive grade 3 tumors. To further investigate the expression of these genes and the fifth member of the SET complex (pp32), we performed immunohistochemistry, on a tissue array composed of 235 serous tumors of different grades and disease stages. A significant correlation between expression of all SET complex proteins and the tumor differentiation was observed (p < 0.05). When combining all tumors, overexpression of Nm23 (p = 0.04), Set (p = 0.004) and Ape1 (p = 0.004) was associated with the clinical stage of the disease. No marker by itself was associated with prognosis. The combination of a high level of Nm23 in the context of a low level of Set compared to all other combinations of these markers did confer a better prognosis (p = 0.03). When combined, high expression of Hmgb2 and low expression of Ape1 was also associated with patient prognosis (p = 0.05). These findings suggest that a strategy that sums the activities of different partners within a pathway may be more appropriate in designing nomograms for patient stratification.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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