MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007618989 · doi:10.2217/bmm.14.115

Low level of the X-Linked Ribosomal Protein S4 in Human Urothelial Carcinomas is Associated With a Poor Prognosis

2015· article· en· W2007618989 on OpenAlexaff
Éric R. Paquet, Hélène Hovington, Hervé Brisson, Cédric Lacombe, Hélène LaRue, Bernard Têtu, Louis Lacombe, Yves Fradet, Michel Lebel

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomarkers in Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA modifications and cancer
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystectomyBladder cancerProportional hazards modelInternal medicineOncologyMultivariate analysisPopulationSurvival analysisMetastasisImmunohistochemistryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: We determined whether the Y-box binding protein-1 (YB-1) and its binding partner, the X-linked ribosomal protein S4 (RPS4X), are associated with clinical outcome in bladder cancer. MATERIALS & METHODS: A population of 167 patients with muscle-invasive bladder tumor without evidence of metastasis at time of cystectomy was analyzed retrospectively. YB-1 and RPS4X expressions were evaluated immunohistochemically in tumors and analyzed for association with clinical variables and survival. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox regression analyses indicated that low expression of RPS4X was associated with a higher risk of death or disease recurrence. In contrast, YB-1 was not significantly associated with either recurrence-free or overall survival. CONCLUSION: Low RPS4X expression is associated with poor disease-specific and recurrence-free survival in bladder cancer.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomarkers in MedicineSame topicRNA modifications and cancerFrench-language works237,207