MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013425855 · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-06-2350

Oncogenes, Trousseau Syndrome, and Cancer-Related Changes in the Coagulome of Mice and Humans

2006· review· en· W2013425855 on OpenAlexaff
Janusz Rak, Joanne Yu, James P. Luyendyk, Nigel Mackman

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcMaster University Medical CentreMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCancerCancer researchMedicineFibrinolysisThrombosisPlasminogen activator inhibitor-1Plasminogen activatorTissue factor pathway inhibitorTissue factorEpigeneticsInflammationImmunologyPathologyBiologyInternal medicineCoagulationGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer is often associated with venous thrombosis, a phenomenon that was first described by Trousseau in 1865 (Trousseau syndrome). Recent studies have begun to explain how oncogenic events may deregulate the hemostatic system. For instance, activated oncogenes (K-ras, EGFR, PML-RARalpha, and MET) or inactivated tumor suppressors (e.g., 53 or PTEN) may increase the risk of thrombosis by inducing the expression of tissue factor, a potent procoagulant molecule, and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, a fibrinolysis inhibitor. In a more complex clinical reality, transforming genes may often act in concert with numerous epigenetic factors, including hypoxia, inflammation, anticancer therapy, contact between blood and metastatic cancer cells, and emission of procoagulant vesicles from tumors and their stroma into the circulation. To add to mechanistic insights gained from mouse models, which may not fully phenocopy human Trousseau syndrome, we suggest that valuable clues to progression and thrombosis risk may be obtained by monitoring multiple hemostatic variables in cancer patients ("coagulomics").

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 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 score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 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

Citations162
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsFrench-language works237,207