MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MicroRNAs in Bladder Cancer: Expression Profiles, Biological Functions, Regulation, and Clinical Implications

2014· review· en· W2015916598 on OpenAlexaff
Zhaoqi Shi, Qingxia Wei, Mingxin Zhang, Junjun She

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Eukaryotic Gene Expression · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicroRNA in disease regulation
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmicroRNAEpigeneticsBiologyBiogenesisBladder cancerMetastasisCancerRegulation of gene expressionTumor progressionCancer researchComputational biologyBioinformaticsGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bladder cancer (UBC) is a common cancer worldwide and has a high rate of recurrence and progression despite systemic therapy. The molecular mechanisms of UBC are not completely understood. MicroRNAs are noncoding RNA molecules of approximately 23 nucleotides that play important roles in multiple steps during the progression of UBC. Here, we review the expression profiles of miRNAs and their biological functions, regulation, and clinical implications in UBC. Either down-regulation or up-regulation of miRNAs occurs in UBC through epigenetic changes or defects of the biogenesis apparatus. Deregulation of miRNAs is involved in cell-cycle arrest, apoptosis, proliferation, metastasis, drug resistance, and other functions in UBC. A number of miRNAs, including urine miRNAs, have been associated with tumor type, stage, or patient survival, and miRNAs might be developed as diagnostic or prognostic markers. Better understanding of the roles of miRNAs in UBC will shed light on the molecular mechanisms of UBC.

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 score0.006

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Eukaryotic Gene ExpressionSame topicMicroRNA in disease regulationFrench-language works237,207