MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119841327 · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6604426

Relationship between human tumour angiogenic profile and combretastatin-induced vascular shutdown: an exploratory study

2008· article· en· W2119841327 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Gaya, Frances Daley, N. Jane Taylor, Gillian M. Tozer, U Qureshi, Anwar R. Padhani, RB Pedley, Rhj Begent, David Wellsted, James Stirling, Gordon Rustin

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
FundersCancer Research UK
KeywordsImmunohistochemistryPathologyMedicineAngiogenesisCombretastatinInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Combretastatin-A4-phosphate (CA4P) acts most effectively against immature tumour vasculature. We investigated whether histological angiogenic profile can explain the differential sensitivity of human tumours to CA4P, by correlating the kinetic changes demonstrated by dynamic MRI (DCE-MRI) in response to CA4P, with tumour immunohistochemical angiogenic markers. Tissue was received from 24 patients (mean age 59, range 32-73, 18 women, 6 men). An angiogenic profile was performed using standard immunohistochemical techniques. Dynamic MRI data were obtained for the same patients before and 4 h after CA4P. Three patients showed a statistically significant fall in K(trans) following CA4P, and one a statistically significant fall in IAUGC(60). No statistically significant correlations were seen between the continuous or categorical variables and the DCE-MRI kinetic parameters other than between ang-2 and K(trans) (P=0.044). In conclusion, we found no strong relationships between changes in DCE-MRI kinetic variables following CA4P and the immunohistochemical angiogenic profile.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207