MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119648337 · doi:10.1002/gcc.10108

Evidence of a role for the INK4 family of cyclin‐dependent kinase inhibitors in ovarian granulosa cell tumors

2002· article· en· W2119648337 on OpenAlexaff
Mayi Arcellana‐Panlilio, R. Maarten Egeler, Eva Ujack, Anthony Magliocco, Gavin Stuart, Stephen M. Robbins, Max J. Coppes

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes Chromosomes and Cancer · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCyclin-dependent kinaseCancer researchExonLoss of heterozygosityCyclin DDNA methylationCyclin-dependent kinase 4Tumor suppressor geneGeneMolecular biologyGene expressionGeneticsCarcinogenesisCell cycleCyclin-dependent kinase 2Allele

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Granulosa cell tumors (GCTs) of the ovary are relatively rare and account for <5% of all ovarian cancers. The molecular pathogenesis of these tumors is not well understood. We tested the hypothesis that cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors, specifically the inhibitors of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (INK4) family, are targets for altered gene expression in GCTs. The status of RB1, INK4A, INK4B, INK4C, INK4D, and ARF in 13 adult and 2 juvenile ovarian GCTs was determined by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction of total RNA and exon-specific sequencing of genomic DNA. Tumors showing loss of INK4A expression were assayed further by exon-deletion analysis and methylation-specific PCR. None of the juvenile tumors demonstrated altered expression, but 7/12 (58%) adult GCTs lacked expression of INK4A, INK4B, or both. In one of these cases, we noted a homozygous deletion of the INK4A locus, and in the remaining tumors we found hypermethylation of the promoter region, a mechanism that can lead to gene inactivation. These data support a role for the INK4 family of CDK inhibitors in the biology of GCTs.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations23
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes Chromosomes and CancerSame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207