MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992935201 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084635

Folic Acid Supplementation Promotes Mammary Tumor Progression in a Rat Model

2014· article· en· W1992935201 on OpenAlexafffund
Shaidah Deghan Manshadi, Lisa Ishiguro, Kyoung‐Jin Sohn, Alan Medline, Richard Renlund, Ruth Croxford, Young‐In Kim

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsHumber River Regional HospitalStatistics CanadaUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMammary tumorFolic acid supplementationMedicineMammary glandCancerTumor progressionBreast cancerInternal medicineCarcinogenesisMetastasisEndocrinologyFolic acidCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Folic acid supplementation may prevent the development of cancer in normal tissues but may promote the progression of established (pre)neoplastic lesions. However, whether or not folic acid supplementation can promote the progression of established (pre)neoplastic mammary lesions is unknown. This is a critically important issue because breast cancer patients and survivors in North America are likely exposed to high levels of folic acid owing to folic acid fortification and widespread supplemental use after cancer diagnosis. We investigated whether folic acid supplementation can promote the progression of established mammary tumors. Female Sprague-Dawley rats were placed on a control diet and mammary tumors were initiated with 7,12-dimethylbenza[a]anthracene at puberty. When the sentinel tumor reached a predefined size, rats were randomized to receive a diet containing the control, 2.5x, 4x, or 5x supplemental levels of folic acid for up to 12 weeks. The sentinel mammary tumor growth was monitored weekly. At necropsy, the sentinel and all other mammary tumors were analyzed histologically. The effect of folic acid supplementation on the expression of proteins involved in proliferation, apoptosis, and mammary tumorigenesis was determined in representative sentinel adenocarcinomas. Although no clear dose-response relationship was observed, folic acid supplementation significantly promoted the progression of the sentinel mammary tumors and was associated with significantly higher sentinel mammary tumor weight and volume compared with the control diet. Furthermore, folic acid supplementation was associated with significantly higher weight and volume of all mammary tumors. The most significant and consistent mammary tumor-promoting effect was observed with the 2.5x supplemental level of folic acid. Folic acid supplementation was also associated with an increased expression of BAX, PARP, and HER2. Our data suggest that folic acid supplementation may promote the progression of established mammary tumors. The potential tumor-promoting effect of folic acid supplementation in breast cancer patients and survivors needs further clarification.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations95
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicFolate and B Vitamins ResearchFrench-language works237,207