MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042040454 · doi:10.1139/o02-036

<b>NOTE</b>Expression of prolactin receptors and regulation of cell proliferation by prolactin, corticotropin-releasing factor, and corticosterone in a neuroblastoma cell line

2002· article· en· W2042040454 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Y N Mohammad, Marcelo J. Perone, Lily Wang, P.M. Ingleton, María G. Castro, David A. Lovejoy

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroblastoma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsProlactinInternal medicineEndocrinologyCorticosteroneReceptorBiologyCell cultureNeuroblastomaHormoneMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aetiology of neuroblastoma remains obscure, although a number of neuropeptides have been implicated in its pathogenesis. Using the mouse neuroblastoma cell line Neuro2a as a model, we have investigated the mitogenic actions of prolactin (PRL) and two hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal stress axis hormones, corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) and corticosterone. Using established polyclonal PRL receptor antisera with immunofluorescence cytochemistry, we show that the Neuro2a cells possess immunoreactive forms of both the long and short forms of the receptor. PRL and CRF were effective as mitogens in Neuro2a cell cultures, where a 10(-7) M concentration of PRL or CRF elicited a two-fold increase in the numbers of cells after 72 h (p < 0.0001). Corticosterone, however, attenuated their proliferation. These data suggest that prolactin may act to increase the proliferation and regulation of neuroblastomas and that the effects of PRL may be modified by hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal hormones.

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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0060.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell BiologySame topicNeuroblastoma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207