MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074325678 · doi:10.4161/cam.20377

The role of the myofibroblast in tumor stroma remodeling

2012· review· en· W2074325678 on OpenAlexafffund
Marcela Otranto, Vincent Sarrazy, Frédéric Bonté, Boris Hinz, Giulio Gabbiani, Alexis Desmoulière

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Adhesion & Migration · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Cells and Metastasis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsStromaMyofibroblastFibrosisPathologyBiologyStromal cellTumor progressionTumor microenvironmentWound healingLungCell biologyCancer researchCancerMedicineImmunologyTumor cellsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since its first description in wound granulation tissue, the myofibroblast has been recognized to be a key actor in the epithelial-mesenchymal cross-talk that plays a crucial role in many physiological and pathological situations, such as regulation of prostate development, ventilation-perfusion in lung alveoli or organ fibrosis. The presence of myofibroblasts in the stroma reaction to epithelial tumors is well established and many data are accumulating which suggest that the stroma compartment is an active participant in tumor onset and/or evolution. In this review we summarize the evidence in favor of this concept, the main mechanisms that regulate myofibroblast differentiation and function, as well as the biophysical and biochemical factors possibly involved in epithelial-stroma interactions, using liver carcinoma as main model, in view of achieving a better understanding of tumor progression mechanisms and of tools directed toward stroma as eventual therapeutic target.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 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

Citations248
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell Adhesion & MigrationSame topicCancer Cells and MetastasisFrench-language works237,207