MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064756944 · doi:10.1002/mc.20562

Insulin‐like growth factor type I receptor gene expression and obesity in esophageal adenocarcinoma

2009· article· en· W2064756944 on OpenAlexaff
Ronghua Zhao, K. MacDonald, Alan G. Casson

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Carcinogenesis · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMalignancyInsulin-like growth factorEndocrinologyInternal medicineGene expressionMessenger RNAAdenocarcinomaReceptorBody mass indexGeneCancer researchGrowth factorCancerGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this exploratory study was to evaluate the role of the insulin-like growth factor I receptor (IGF-IR) in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EADC). Using quantitative PCR, we studied IGF-IR mRNA expression in 52 well-characterized surgically resected EADC and matched histologically normal esophageal tissues, and examined IGF-IR expression levels in relation to clinicopathologic characteristics, body mass index (BMI), and the common IGF-IR polymorphism (G1013A), recently proposed to modify risk of obesity for EADC. Expression levels of IGF-IR mRNA were not significantly different between EADC and matched histologically normal esophageal epithelia. Although no significant associations were found between IGF-IR expression and BMI, tumor differentiation, stage or survival, when stratified by genotype, patients with the polymorphic A variant had significantly higher IGF-IR expression in EADC tissues compared with matched normal epithelia. These findings suggest that G1013A most likely modulates IGF-IR function, possibly by influencing gene transcription or mRNA stability, and represents a plausible mechanistic link underlying the association between obesity and esophageal malignancy.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular CarcinogenesisSame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207