MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048281866 · doi:10.1002/glia.21185

Cancer stem cells in gliomas: Identifying and understanding the apex cell in cancer's hierarchy

2011· review· en· W2048281866 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlia · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Cells and Metastasis
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsCancer stem cellBiologyPhenotypeStem cellCancerCancer researchAngiogenesisTumor initiationCancer cellNeuroscienceCytotoxic T cellBioinformaticsImmunologyMetastasisCell biologyIn vitroGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuro-oncology research has rediscovered a complexity of nervous system cancers through the incorporation of cellular heterogeneity into tumor models with cellular subsets displaying stem-cell characteristics. Self-renewing cancer stem cells (CSCs) can propagate tumors and yield nontumorigenic tumor bulk cells that display a more differentiated phenotype. The ability to prospectively isolate and interrogate CSCs is defining molecular mechanisms responsible for the tumor maintenance and growth. The clinical relevance of CSCs has been supported by their resistance to cytotoxic therapies and their promotion of tumor angiogenesis. Although the field of CSC biology is relatively young, continued elucidation of the features of these cells holds promise for the development of novel patient therapies. © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.165 · 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