MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042571270 · doi:10.1586/14737159.3.2.185

Gene expression in cancer: the application of microarrays

2003· review· en· W2042571270 on OpenAlexaff
Pascale F Macgregor

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Molecular Diagnostics · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDNA microarrayMicroarrayCancerContext (archaeology)DiseaseBiologyComputational biologyGene chip analysisMicroarray analysis techniquesBioinformaticsGeneGene expressionMedicineGeneticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genome-wide monitoring of gene expression using DNA microarrays represents one of the latest breakthroughs in experimental molecular biology and provides unprecedented opportunity to explore the biological processes underlying human diseases by providing a comprehensive survey of a cell's transcriptional landscape. In the cancer field, this revolutionary technology allows the simultaneous assessment of the transcription of tens of thousands of genes, and of their relative expression between normal cells and malignant cells. As microarray analysis emerges from its infancy, there is widespread hope that microarrays will significantly impact on our ability to explore the genetic changes associated with cancer etiology and development, and ultimately lead to the discovery of new biomarkers for disease diagnosis and prognosis prediction, and of new therapeutic tools. This review provides an overview of microarray technology, specifically in the context of cancer research and describes some of its recent applications to the study of cancer. In addition, the challenges of translating microarray findings into molecular cancer diagnosis and prognosis tools, with the potential of altering clinical practice through individualized cancer care and ultimately of contributing to the battle against cancer, are discussed.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations48
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Molecular DiagnosticsSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207