MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984542528 · doi:10.4161/cc.9.1.10264

Induction of papillary carcinoma in human ovarian surface epithelial cells using combined genetic elements and peritoneal microenvironment

2010· article· en· W1984542528 on OpenAlexaff
Jingfang Zheng, Imelda Mercado‐Uribe, Daniel Rosen, Bin Chang, Peishu Liu, Gong Yang, Anaís Malpica, Honami Naora, Nelly Auersperg, Gordon B. Mills, Robert C. Bast, Jinsong Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Cycle · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsOvarian carcinomaBiologyOvarian cancerOvaryCancer researchCarcinomaPathologyCellular differentiationCancerEndocrinologyGeneMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Papillary differentiation is one of the most common histological features of ovarian cancer, although the underlying mechanism that leads to such differentiation is not known. We hypothesized that human ovarian surface epithelial cells can be transformed into carcinoma with papillary differentiation by overexpressing HER2/neu in these cells. Mice were injected either subcutaneously or intraperitoneally with two immortalized human ovarian surface epithelial cell lines after enforced expression of HER-2/neu. Mice subcutaneously injected with tumor cells from either the T29Nt or T80Nt developed undifferentiated carcinomas. In contrast, mice injected intraperitoneally with T29Nt cells developed papillary carcinoma, and those injected intraperitoneally with T80Nt cells developed undifferentiated carcinoma. Our results demonstrate that ovarian surface epithelial cells can develop into papillary carcinoma in mice, and that the induction of papillary differentiation depends not only on specific genetic modifications but also on the tumor microenvironment and epithelial cell type from ovary from different patients.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell CycleSame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207