MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092990450 · doi:10.3390/nu3110929

Differential Mammary Gland Development in FVB and C57Bl/6 Mice: Implications for Breast Cancer Research

2011· article· en· W2092990450 on OpenAlexafffund
Mira B. MacLennan, Breanne M. Anderson, David W.L.

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance
KeywordsMammary glandPolyunsaturated fatty acidBiologyEndocrinologyBreast cancerInternal medicinePhysiologyBreast developmentCancerFatty acidMedicineHormoneGeneticsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing body of research suggests a linkage between pubertal mammary gland development and environmental factors such as diet as modifiers of long term breast cancer risk. Much of this research is dependent upon mouse models, which may vary between studies. However, effects may be strain dependent and further modified by diet, which has not been previously examined. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to determine whether mammary gland development differs between FVB and C57Bl/6 strains on diets containing either n-6 or n-3 polyunsaturated fats. Developmental measures related to onset of puberty and mammary gland development differed between strains. Mice fed the n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) diet were shown to have lower numbers of terminal end buds, a marker of mammary gland development. This study helps to further clarify differences in development and dietary response between FVB and C57Bl/6 mice in order to more appropriately relate mammary gland research to human populations.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207