MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984982762 · doi:10.1159/000076636

A Viral Aetiology for Breast Cancer: Time to Re-Examine the Postulate

2004· review· en· W1984982762 on OpenAlexaff
Christine Mant, Shirley Hodgson, Richard Hobday, Corrado D’Arrigo, John Cason

Bibliographic record

VenueIntervirology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerEtiologyVirologyCancerMedicineOncologyBiologyImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite decades of research, no aetiologic factor(s) for human breast cancer has been identified and the search for a causal agent has all but been abandoned during the past thirty years. Over 60 years ago, it was demonstrated that breast tumours in mice are caused by an oncornavirus, murine mammary tumour virus (MMTV). Whilst many at that time postulated a similar virus might be the causative agent of human breast cancer, genetic evidence was difficult to obtain primarily because of the occurrence of endogenous human retrovirus (HER) sequences within the human genome that share extensive regions of nucleotide homology with MMTV. Recently, there has been a resurgence of interest in the possibility that a significant proportion of human breast cancers may be caused by viral infections. Two candidate viruses have been proposed, a human retroviral analogue of MMTV (which differs significantly in sequence and characteristics from HERs) and, the Epstein-Barr virus (gamma-herpes virus). These two viruses have been reported to occur in up to 37 and 50% of breast cancer cases, respectively. Here we present the background to the infectious hypothesis for the aetiology of breast cancer and review recent findings.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient 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 score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations33
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntervirologySame topicVirus-based gene therapy researchFrench-language works237,207