MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017051653 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0108781

IGF-IR Mediated Mammary Tumorigenesis Is Enhanced during Pubertal Development

2014· article· en· W2017051653 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert A. Jones, Katrina L. Watson, Craig I. Campbell, Roger A. Moorehead

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCarcinogenesisMammary glandBiologyTransgeneMammary tumorEndocrinologyInternal medicineGenetically modified mouseCancer researchMalignant transformationBreast cancerCancerMedicineGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although breast cancer typically develops in women over the age of 40, it remains unclear when breast cancer initiating events occur or whether the mammary gland is particularly susceptible to oncogenic transformation at a particular developmental stage. Using MTB-IGFIR transgenic mice that overexpress type I insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGF-IR) in a doxycycline-inducible manner, mammary tumorigenesis was initiated at different developmental stages. Tumor multiplicity was significantly increased while tumor latency was significantly decreased when the IGF-IR transgene was expressed during pubertal development compared to post-pubertal transgene expression. Moreover, metastatic spread of mammary tumors to the lungs was approximately twice as likely when IGF-IR was overexpressed in pubertal mice compared to post-pubertal mice. In addition, engraftment of pubertal MTB-IGFIR mammary tissue into cleared mammary fat pads of pubertal hosts produced tumors more frequently and faster than engraftment into adult hosts. These experiments show that the mammary microenvironment created during puberty renders mammary epithelial cells particularly susceptible to transformation.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207