MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992324708 · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-09-1528

MDA-MB-435 and M14 Cell Lines: Identical but not M14 Melanoma?

2009· article· en· W1992324708 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelanomaCell cultureBiologyCancerCancer researchCancer cellBreast cancerCellGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A controversy has arisen over the past several years about the true origin of the human MDA-MB-435 cell line. Originally described as a human breast cancer cell line, subsequent expression array studies instead suggested a gene expression profile consistent with a melanoma origin. Subsequent karyotype and comparative genomic hybridization studies supported the idea that current stocks of both MDA-MB-435 cells and M14 melanoma cells must be identical cell lines, and the conclusion was drawn that both cell lines were in fact M14 melanoma cells. However, an alternate conclusion based on these data is that both cell lines are indeed identical, but are in fact MDA-MB-435 breast cancer cells. There is evidence that many cell lines can display "lineage infidelity" and that assignment to tissue type is unreliably made based on expression patterns. Evidence from the literature is presented here that is inconsistent with both lines being of M14 melanoma origin, but rather is consistent with both cell lines being of MDA-MB-435 breast cancer origin.

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 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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.331 · 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