MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cancer Stem Cells: At the Headwaters of Tumor Development

2006· review· en· W2111864465 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Pathology Mechanisms of Disease · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Cells and Metastasis
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCancer stem cellCancerStem cellCancer cellBiologyCancer researchProstate cancerPathologyImmunologyMedicineCell biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the cancer stem cell hypothesis, only a subpopulation of cells within a cancer has the capacity to sustain tumor growth. This subpopulation of cells is made up of cancer stem cells, which are defined simply as the population of cells within a tumor that can self-renew, differentiate, and regenerate a phenocopy of the cancer when injected in vivo. Cancer stem cells have now been prospectively isolated from human cancers of the blood, breast, and brain, and putative cancer stem cells have been identified from human skin, bone, and prostate tumors and from multiple established mammalian cancer cell lines. Furthermore, researchers are actively seeking cancer stem cells in every human cancer type. We present the current scientific evidence supporting the cancer stem cell hypothesis and discuss the experimental and therapeutic implications of the discovery of human cancer stem cells.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.305 · 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