MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083430251 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2011-4289

Abstract 4289: Using the right tools: A catalog of ovarian cancer cell lines by subtype

2011· article· en· W2083430251 on OpenAlexaff
Michael S. Anglesio, Karen E. Sheppard, Clara Salamanca, Christine Chow, Yuzhuo Wang, Martin Köbel, C. Blake Gilks, Steve E. Kalloger, David G. Huntsman

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvarian cancerSerous fluidSerous carcinomaClear cellCancerDiseaseOncologyOvarian carcinomaBiologyCancer researchMedicineInternal medicineBioinformaticsImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ovarian cancer cell lines provide an important tool in exploring disease phenotypes and biology. Within the spectrum of ovarian epithelial cancers at least five histologically distinguishable unique diseases exist: high-grade serous, clear cell, endometrioid, mucinous, and low-grade serous. While sharing a common site of presentation, these ovarian cancer types exhibit distinct genomic signatures, clinical characteristics and treatment responses. Thus, the critical interpretation of the results of cell based experiments performed in in-vitro and in-vivo model systems of ovarian cancer first requires characterization of the disease subtype each model represents. Our group has recently used a minimal panel of nine immunohistochemical (IHC) markers, termed “COSP” (Calculator for Ovarian carcinoma Subtype Prediction), to predict each ovarian cancer type. Application of COSP has suggested that as many as 19% of primary ovarian cancer samples may be misclassified prior to an expert review. Commonly used cell lines are rarely classified into ovarian cancer types, confounding interpretation of results and potentially delaying transition of basic research to clinically relevant application. We now apply COSP for typing commonly used ovarian cancer cell lines, as well as in-house derived xenografts, and primary culture models. The COSP immuno-predictive tool is combined with molecular and mutational data to support each cell line's subtype prediction while primary tumour types are compared to their derivative cell lines. We now present an extensive panel of accurately classified ovarian cancer cell lines to facilitate disease specific analysis of the biology of ovarian cancer. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2011 Apr 2-6; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2011;71(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 4289. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2011-4289

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.007

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.303 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207