MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Establishment of a mouse xenograft model for mycosis fungoides

2004· article· en· W2023918198 on OpenAlexaff
Sonja Thaler, Angelika M. Burger, Thomas F. Schulz, Boris Brill, Alexandra Bittner, Patrick A. Oberholzer, Reinhard Dummer, Barbara S. Schnierle

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Dermatology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders research
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMycosis fungoidesPathologyLymphLungImmunohistochemistryMedicineT cellImmune systemLymphomaCancer researchImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most frequent variant of cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCLs). MF primarily involves the skin initially with patches and plaques. In later stages, cutaneous tumors develop and tumor cells may spread to lymph nodes and finally to visceral sites. Here, we describe an animal model for MF in immune-deficient nude mice, using the CTCL cell line MyLa. Subcutaneous transplantation of MyLa cells leads to the formation of cutaneous tumors in 80% of the mice (50/60 total). Spread of tumor cells to visceral sites was detected by immunohistochemistry and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based detection of specific T-cell receptor-gamma rearrangement. MyLa cells were found circulating in the blood, lymph nodes, and in blood vessels of heart, kidney, lung, and liver. In lung and liver tissue, tumor cells presented perivascular invasion, but no large secondary tumors developed. The nude mouse model described here will be a valuable test system for new therapeutic approaches for the treatment of MF and opens the unique opportunity to study the disease in vivo.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental DermatologySame topicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders researchFrench-language works237,207