MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113870493 · doi:10.1177/1534735408326454

Of Germ Cells, Trophoblasts, and Cancer Stem Cells

2008· article· en· W2113870493 on OpenAlexafffund
Angela Burleigh

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrative Cancer Therapies · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMichael Smith Health Research BCCanadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
KeywordsCancer stem cellBiologyCancerStem cellEmbryonic stem cellCancer cellCancer researchPopulationHomeobox protein NANOGCell biologyMedicineGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The trophoblastic theory of cancer, proposed in the early 1900s by Dr John Beard, may not initially seem relevant to current cancer models and treatments. However, the underpinnings of this theory are remarkably similar to those of the cancer stem cell (CSC) theory. Beard noticed that a significant fraction of germ cells never reach their final destination as they migrate during embryonic development from the hindgut to the germinal ridge. In certain situations, upon aberrant stimulation, these vagrant germ cells are able to generate tumors. Simplistically, the CSC theory surmises that a small population of tumorigenic cells exists, which initiate and maintain tumors, and these cells have a likely origin in normal stem cells. Both these theories are based on the potential of a single primitive cell to form a tumor. This has a major implication for cancer therapy, in that only a small percentage of cells need to be targeted to ablate a tumor.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrative Cancer TherapiesSame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207