MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046500012 · doi:10.1002/gcc.20137

High‐resolution chromosome arm 5p array CGH analysis of small cell lung carcinoma cell lines

2004· article· en· W2046500012 on OpenAlexaff
Bradley P. Coe, Laura‐Jane Henderson, Cathie Garnis, Ming‐Sound Tsao, Adi F. Gazdar, John D. Minna, Stephen Lam, Calum MacAulay, Wan L. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes Chromosomes and Cancer · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsComparative genomic hybridizationBiologyChromosomeBreakpointclone (Java method)GeneticsBacterial artificial chromosomeSmall Cell Lung CarcinomaGeneGenomeCarcinomaSmall-cell carcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genomic amplification of regions on chromosome arm 5p has been observed frequently in small cell lung cancer (SCLC), implying the presence of multiple oncogenes on this arm. Although conventional comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) detects gross chromosomal copy number changes, gene discovery requires a higher-resolution approach in order to identify regions of alteration precisely. To identify candidate genes on this chromosome arm, we developed a high-resolution, 10-clone-per-megabase bacterial artificial chromosome CGH array for 5p and examined a panel of 15 SCLC cell lines. Utilization of this CGH array has allowed the fine-mapping of breakpoints to regions as small as 200 kb in a single experiment. In addition to reporting our observations of aberrations at the well-characterized SKP2 and TERT loci, we describe the identification of microdeletions that have escaped detection by conventional screens and the identification TRIO and ANKH as novel putative oncogenes.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.204 · 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.

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

Citations49
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes Chromosomes and CancerSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207