MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022762333 · doi:10.1038/onc.2012.159

Lipocalin 2 performs contrasting, location-dependent roles in APCmin tumor initiation and progression

2012· article· en· W2022762333 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick T. Reilly, Wei Teo, Meijun Low, A A Amoyo-Brion, Carmen Dominguez‐Brauer, Andrew Elia, Thorsten Berger, Gediminas Greicius, Sven Pettersson, Tak W. Mak

Bibliographic record

VenueOncogene · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLipocalinCarcinogenesisColorectal cancerCancer researchTumor progressionSmall intestineCancerTranscriptomeInflammationDuodenumInternal medicineEndocrinologyImmunologyGeneGene expressionGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence that lipocalin 2 (LCN2) is oncogenic has grown in recent years and comes from both animal models and expression analysis from a variety of human cancers. In the intestine, LCN2 is overexpressed in colitis patients and its overexpression is a negative prognostic indicator in colorectal cancer. Functionally, LCN2 has a number of different activities that may contribute to its oncogenic potential, including increasing matrix metalloproteinase activity, control of iron availability and stimulating inflammation. In this report, we examined APCmin intestinal tumorigenesis in an LCN2-deficient background. We found that the loss of LCN2 increased tumor multiplicity specifically in the duodenum, suggesting a potential tumor-suppressive activity. Concurrently, however, LCN2 increased the average small intestinal tumor size particularly in the distal small intestine. We found that this increase was correlated to tumor iron(II) content, suggesting that an iron-scavenging role is important for LCN2 oncogenic activity in the intestine.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 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

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncogeneSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207