MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055305573 · doi:10.1002/hed.23021

Identification of novel target proteins in sebaceous gland carcinoma

2012· article· en· W2055305573 on OpenAlexaff
Boban M. Erović, Ayman Al Habeeb, LUKE HARRIS, David P. Goldstein, Dae Joon Kim, Danny Ghazarian, Jonathan C. Irish

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpidermal growth factor receptorCancer researchAngiogenesisBiologyCarcinogenesisWnt signaling pathwaySebaceous glandCancerEndocrinologyReceptorSignal transductionCell biologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to identify new target proteins in sebaceous gland carcinoma. METHODS: A tissue microarray containing 115 core biopsies was constructed and stained for proteins involved in carcinogenesis, angiogenesis, inflammation, and cell-to-cell contact. Two investigators independently determined protein expression of all antibodies. RESULTS: Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2), platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha and beta (PDGFR-α/-β), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), cyclooxygenase 1 and 2 (Cox-1/-2), myeloid cell leukemia sequence 1 (Mcl-1), matrix metalloproteinase 1 (MMP-1), CD9, Bmi-1, 14-3-3σ, glutathione S-transferase pi (Gstπ), and members of the sonic hedgehog (SHH), AKT, and WNT pathways were significantly overexpressed in sebaceous gland carcinomas. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated for the first time that proteins related to angiogenesis, inflammation, and cell proliferation are overexpressed in sebaceous gland carcinomas. These proteins may hold promise as novel therapeutic targets for the treatment of sebaceous gland carcinoma.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207