MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100075437 · doi:10.5539/cco.v1n1p148

Increased Chromosome Fragility in Gastric Cancer Patients

2012· article· en· W2100075437 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Petros Kouridakis, Evangelos Digkas, Georgios Kouklakis, Georgios J. Minopoulos, Alexandros Polychronidis, Nikolaos Lyratzopoulos, T. Lialiaris

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer and Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCancerSister chromatid exchangeMedicineInternal medicineLymphocyteMalignancyGastroenterologyFragilityChromosomeBiologyOncologyIn vitroGeneticsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gastric cancer is one of the most common lethal malignancy in global and survival mainly depends on prognosis. Sister Chromatid Exchanges (SCEs) assay is a very sensitive method of detecting chromosome fragility. The aim of our study was to determine the chromosomal fragility of gastric cancer patients in vitro. Samples from 32 gastric cancer patients and 12 healthy donors were controlled. Cancer patients lymphocytes’ genome is highly fragile as treatment of the cell cultures with MMC caused a statistically significant increase of the mean SCEs frequency (p<0.01). Also, so simultaneous as MMC-induced SCEs frequency of gastric cancer patients was statistically significant (p<0.01) higher compared to the healthy donors. PRI and MI of treated with MMC and untreated lymphocytes of gastric cancer patients were significantly (p<0.01) lower than that of healthy donors. These results suggest that peripheral lymphocyte chromosomes of cancer patients are highly fragile and alkyliotic agents increase their fragility.

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)0.000
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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer and Clinical OncologySame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207