MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tumor Microenvironment in Human Tumor Xenografted Mouse Models

2014· article· en· W2079330274 on OpenAlex
Mariana Varna, Philippe Bertheau, Luc Legrès

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Analytical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTumor microenvironmentCancer researchAngiogenesisTumor cellsImmune systemImmunologyMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tumor microenvironment, known to exert regulatory functions on tumor cells, plays an important role when a human tumor is xenografted into immunodeficient mice. Primary human tumors xenografts represent a promising strategy to study new therapeutic efficacy or to understand the mechanisms implicated in tumor relapse. The development of xenografts is linked not only to the aggressivity of the tumor cells, but also to the tumor microenvironment. Tumor xenograft cell proliferation is dependent on microenvironment modifications such as angiogenesis and human blood vessel replacement, host immune cells and the presence of growth factors. The characterisation and a better knowledge of these factors allow for a more appropriate use of xenograft animal models in the evaluation of new antitumor treatments. In this review, we describe the different factors linked to the tumor microenvironment and their impact on the take rate when human tumors are xenografted into immunodeficient mice.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.302 · 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