MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015051582 · doi:10.1002/ijc.24242

Fatty acid synthase is over‐expressed in large aberrant crypt foci in rats treated with azoxymethane

2008· article· en· W2015051582 on OpenAlexaff
Dominic Lau, Michael C. Archer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cancer · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Lipids, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAzoxymethaneAberrant crypt fociFatty acid synthaseColorectal cancerDysplasiaImmunohistochemistryPathologyAtypiaBiologyCryptCarcinogenCancerCancer researchFatty acidMedicineEndocrinologyBiochemistryColonic diseaseGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fatty acid synthase (FAS) is over‐expressed in many human cancers including colon. High levels of FAS expression have also been observed in a number of lesions that are precursors to invasive colorectal cancer. However, FAS expression in aberrant crypt foci (ACF), the earliest identifiable lesions in colon cancer development, has not been investigated. In this study, we treated Fisher rats with a single dose of the colon carcinogen azoxymethane then evaluated ACF 100 days later. We showed that large ACF (≥4 crypts/focus) have a significantly higher level of immunohistochemical staining for FAS than either small ACF (≤3 crypts/focus) or normal crypts. Furthermore, the severity of nuclear atypia in ACF was positively associated with increased expression of FAS. These findings suggest that the genes associated with FAS over‐expression are activated early in the stepwise development of colon cancer, though not until the ACF have reached a critical size with a level of nuclear atypia indicative of dysplasia. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of CancerSame topicCancer, Lipids, and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207