Chromosome and gene alterations in breast cancer as markers for diagnosis and prognosis as well as pathogenetic targets for therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chromosomal abnormalities have been implicated in cancer development since the turn of the last century. Only during the past two decades, with advances in cytogenetics and molecular biology, has the genetic basis of neoplasia been firmly established, however, with chromosomal alterations being recognized as critical in the pathogenesis of human cancer. Recurrent chromosomal alterations provide cytological and molecular markers for the diagnosis and prognosis of disease. They also facilitate the identification of genes that are important in carcinogenesis and, ultimately, may lead to the development of targeted therapy. In breast cancer, the most prevalent malignancy among females, substantial progress has been achieved in identifying genes located at sites of recurrent chromosomal alterations and in profiling gene expression through the application of powerful cytogenetic and functional genomic techniques. Characterization of the molecular pathologic characteristics and gene-expression profiles of breast cancer should provide new clinical tools for the accurate diagnosis and prediction of prognosis as well as new targets for the development of therapeutic agents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".