ACCELERATED EVOLUTION OF CANCER STEMLINES FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
com:i clones were examined by SATO (1952).The production of clones from other rat tumours have been reported by Japanese workers.MAKINO (1956) produced clones of the HIROSAKI sarcoma and described five different stemline karyotypes, and YOSHIDA (1956, 1957) reports cloncs from a hepatoma ascites.HAUSCHKA (1953 a and b) was the first one to establish clones from niouw ascites tuniours, oiz.some 20 clones of the hypotetraploid Iirebq 2 and Ehrlich carcinomas, the cytology and functional characterization of which were studied by HAUSCHKA and LEVAN (1958).Additional clones of the hypoteteraploid Ehrlich tumour were made by KAZIWARA (1954, who, however, failed in producing clones of the hyperdiploid Ehrlich.It was at first thought that clones would not by viable in the mouse on that ploidy level, but LETTRE and QUERNER (1954) and QUERNER ( 1955) were successful in producing clones of the hyperdiploid Ehrlich.Chromosome analyses of these clones were given by QUERNER From a solid line of the mammary carcinoma S3A E. KLEIN (1955) estahlished new solid tumours by subcutaneous inoculation of one cell.(1955). MATERIAL AND METHODS The mice usedWe obtained the lumour in 1953 by the courtesy of dr.KLEIN, Siockholm, who had just received it from dr.LANDSCHtjTZ.It has been carried
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".