MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007519119 · doi:10.1080/07357900701208683

Telomere Biology of Pediatric Cancer

2007· review· en· W2007519119 on OpenAlexaff
Uri Tabori, Jeffrey S. Dome

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Investigation · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelomeres, Telomerase, and Senescence
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelomeraseTelomereTelomerase reverse transcriptaseCancerBiologyCancer researchPediatric cancerMechanism (biology)GeneticsDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the hallmarks of cancer is limitless proliferative capacity, which is tightly associated with the ability to maintain telomeres. Over the last decade, the telomere biology of pediatric cancers has begun to be elucidated. Most pediatric leukemias and embryonal solid tumors activate the enzyme telomerase, a specialized reverse transcriptase that adds nucleotide repeats to telomeres. In general, high levels of tumor telomerase expression are associated with unfavorable outcome, although results vary according to tumor type. Some pediatric tumors, including osteosarcoma and glioblastoma multiforme, lack telomerase activity and maintain telomeres via a recombination-based mechanism called ALT (alternative lengthening of telomeres). Telomerase is a highly attractive therapeutic target for pediatric cancer because the enzyme plays a key role in conferring cellular immortality, is present in most tumors, and is relatively specific for cancer cells. Telomerase inhibitors have been evaluated in preclinical models of adult cancers, but few studies have been conducted on pediatric cancers. Further research is required to define how telomere biology can be used to clinical advantage in malignancies of childhood.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations17
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer InvestigationSame topicTelomeres, Telomerase, and SenescenceFrench-language works237,207