Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mohyeldin et al. have studied the role of hypoxia-inducible erythropoietin (EPO) signaling in the growth, invasiveness, and response of human astrocytomas and other cancers to cisplatin chemotherapy. They have shown that EPO and its receptor (EPOR) are upregulated in high-grade gliomas as opposed to low-grade gliomas. Interestingly, upregulation is perhaps most intense at regions of pseudopalisading cells surrounding necrotic foci. Although the EPOR gene promoter does not have a hypoxia response element, which would help explain its upregulation in the context of hypoxic conditions, the authors suggest that upregulation of EPO per se following hypoxia may be sufficient to increase EPOR levels. The ability of hypoxia to potentiate EPO reversal of cisplatin toxicity is very interesting. The authors suggest that these effects may be the result of activation of bcl-2 and bcl-XL expression in the JAK-STAT (Janus kinase‐signal transducers and activators of transcription) pathway, and this could be easily assessed. However, could there be some other way in which EPO inactivates cisplatin toxicity based on the known mechanism of action of cisplatin? Did the authors examine other chemotherapeutic agents to see if EPO attenuates their toxicity? The authors have shown that EPO promotes the invasiveness of several glioma cell lines in vitro and EPOR genetically manipulated U251 glioma cells in vivo. The use of the latter model borders on applications of upcoming technologies to limit the growth of human gliomas based on hypoxia-inducible EPO signaling. The authors used a truncated EPOR mutant to stably transfect U251 cells. They showed that this transfected mutant cell line has reduced abilities to invade and grow in subcutaneous spaces in athymic mice. Confirmatory studies involving the use of small inhibitory (si)RNAs directed against either EPO or fulllength EPOR would have been complementary to their data. In addition, it would have been interesting if the authors had placed their xenografts into the intracranial compartment rather than the subcutaneous compartment. Then, we may have witnessed whether the true invasive process that characterizes human astrocytomas was recapitulated in their
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".