Epithelial ovarian cancer stem cells: underlying complexity of a simple paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lack of significant progress in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) underscores the need to gain a better understanding of the processes that lead to chemoresistance and recurrence. The cancer stem cell (CSC) hypothesis offers an attractive explanation of how a subpopulation of cells within a patient's tumour might remain refractory to treatment and subsequently form the basis of recurrent chemoresistant disease. This review examines the literature defining somatic stem cells of the ovary and fallopian tube, two tissues that give rise to EOC. In addition, considerable research has been reviewed, that has identified subpopulations of EOC cells, based on marker expression (CD133, CD44, CD117, CD24, epithelial cell adhesion molecule, LY6A, ALDH1 and side population (SP)), which are enriched for tumour initiating cells (TICs). While many studies identified either CD133 or CD44 as markers useful for enriching for TICs, there is little consensus. This suggests that EOC cells may have a phenotypic plasticity that may preclude the identification of universal markers defining a CSC. The assay that forms the basis of quantifying TICs is the xenograft assay. Considerable controversy surrounds the xenograft assay and it is essential that some of the potential limitations be examined in this review. Highlighting such limitations or weaknesses is required to properly evaluate data and broaden our interpretation of potential mechanisms that might be contributing to the pathogenesis of ovarian cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".