MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090071430 · doi:10.1002/path.1486

Expression of the cell death genes BNip3 and NIX in ductal carcinoma <i>in situ</i> of the breast; correlation of BNip3 levels with necrosis and grade

2003· article· en· W2090071430 on OpenAlexaff
Heidi Sowter, Mary Ferguson, Caroline Pym, Peter H. Watson, Stephen B. Fox, Cheng Han, Adrian L. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Pathology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell death mechanisms and regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuctal carcinomaPathologyApocrineNecrosisBiologyLesionProgrammed cell deathIn situMetaplastic carcinomaCarcinomaBreast cancerCancer researchApoptosisMedicineCancerChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast is an early, non-invasive lesion and the prognosis is associated with the extent of necrosis and cell death within the tumour. Two cell death genes, BNip3 and NIX, are up-regulated in response to hypoxia in breast carcinoma cells, although any involvement of either gene in disease progression is currently unknown. This study has analysed the expression of BNip3 and NIX in 56 samples of breast DCIS, as well as in adjacent benign and invasive breast tissue. Both genes are strongly expressed in the epithelial component of a subset of DCIS and invasive disease. The data show a correlation between high expression of BNip3 in the DCIS cells and a high-grade, necrotic lesion that is likely to be associated with invasive tumour. BNip3 was present in tumour-associated macrophages and in apocrine metaplastic lesions. Expression of NIX did not correlate with any of the parameters investigated.

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: none
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations125
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PathologySame topicCell death mechanisms and regulationFrench-language works237,207