MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013599934 · doi:10.1093/jnci/93.19.1433-a

MEMORANDUM FOR: Science Writers and Editors on the Journal Press List: DNA Repair Pathway Found To Be Involved in Resistance to Chemotherapy Drug

2001· article· en· W2013599934 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
K. Arnold, D. Eckstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScience, Research, and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMemorandumDrugResistance (ecology)Library scienceMedicinePolitical sciencePharmacologyComputer scienceBiologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

September 27, 2001 (EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE 4 P.M. EDT October 2) A new study has found that a common DNA repair mechanism plays a role in resistance to the chemotherapy drug melphalan. The results suggest that interfering with this repair process may sensitize cancer cells to melphalan treatment, conclude Zhi-Min Wang, Lawrence C. Panasci, M.D., and colleagues from the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research at McGill University’s Sir Mortimer B. Davis-Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada. Their research appears in the Oct. 3 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Melphalan is in a group of drugs called nitrogen mustards, which are alkylating agents. The drug is used to treat some breast cancers and ovarian cancers. Melphalan treatment results in toxic DNA damage—interstrand cross-links and double-strand breaks—which leads to cell cycle arrest and cell death. Certain DNA repair mechanisms will reverse this damage, which may make the cells resistant to the therapy. There are two major pathways involved in repairing these types of damage—homologous recombinational repair, in which the undamaged sister chromatid is used to repair the DNA, and nonhomologous DNA endjoining (NHEJ), in which proteins simply fuse together ends of damaged DNA.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.285 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer InstituteSame topicScience, Research, and MedicineFrench-language works237,207