MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084847929 · doi:10.4137/bcbcr.s7344

Intratumoral Immune Responses Can Distinguish New Primary and True Recurrence Types of Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrences (IBTR)

2011· article· en· W2084847929 on OpenAlexafffund
Nathaniel R. West, Valérie Panet-Raymond, Pauline T. Truong, Cheryl Alexander, Sindy Babinszky, Katy Milne, Louetta A. Ross, Steven Loken, Peter H. Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueBreast Cancer Basic and Clinical Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia HospitalMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of VictoriaVancouver Island UniversityBC Cancer Agency
FundersBC Cancer Agency
KeywordsMedicineImmune systemPrimary (astronomy)Primary tumorOncologyInternal medicineImmunologyMetastasisCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) is an increasingly common clinical challenge. IBTRs include True Recurrences (TR; persistent disease) and New Primaries (NP; de novo tumors), but discrimination between these is difficult. We assessed tumor infiltrating leukocytes (TIL) as biomarkers for distinguishing these types of IBTR using primary tumors and matched IBTRs from 24 breast cancer patients, half of which were identified as putative TRs and half as NPs using a previously reported clinical algorithm. Intratumoral lymphocyte populations (CD3, CD8, CD4, CD25, FOXP3, TIA1, CD20) and macrophages (CD68) were quantified by immunohistochemistry in each tumor. Compared to matched primaries, TRs showed significant trends towards increased CD3(+) and CD8(+) TIL, while these populations were often diminished in NPs. Comparison of IBTRs showed that TRs had significantly higher levels of CD3(+) (P = 0.0136), CD8(+) (P = 0.0092), and CD25(+) (P = 0.0159) TIL than NPs. We conclude that TIL may be a novel diagnostic biomarker to distinguish NP from TR IBTRs.

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)0.001
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 score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.397
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

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

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBreast Cancer Basic and Clinical ResearchSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207