MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143686890 · doi:10.1186/bcr901

Experimental manipulation of radiographic density in mouse mammary gland

2004· article· en· W2143686890 on OpenAlexafffund
Mehrdad Hariri, Geoffrey A. Wood, Marco A DiGrappa, Michelle MacPherson, Stéphanie Backman, Martin J. Yaffe, Tak W. Mak, Norman F. Boyd, Rama Khokha

Bibliographic record

VenueBreast Cancer Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreUniversity Health NetworkOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersCanadian Breast Cancer Research AllianceSusan G. Komen
KeywordsMammary glandMammographyMAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITYPTENPathologyHistologySurgical oncologyBreast cancerStromal cellMedicineIn vivoBiologyCancerInternal medicineCell biologySignal transductionGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Extensive mammographic density in women is associated with increased risk for breast cancer. Mouse models provide a powerful approach to the study of human diseases, but there is currently no model that is suited to the study of mammographic density. METHODS: We performed individual manipulations of the stromal, epithelial and matrix components of the mouse mammary gland and examined the alterations using in vivo and ex vivo radiology, whole mount staining and histology. RESULTS: Areas of density were generated that resembled densities in mammographic images of the human breast, and the nature of the imposed changes was confirmed at the cellular level. Furthermore, two genetic models, one deficient in epithelial structure (Pten conditional tissue specific knockout) and one with hyperplastic epithelium and mammary tumors (MMTV-PyMT), were used to examine radiographic density. CONCLUSION: Our data show the feasibility of altering and imaging mouse mammary gland radiographic density by experimental and genetic means, providing the first step toward modelling the biological processes that are responsible for mammographic density in the mouse.

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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBreast Cancer ResearchSame topicDigital Radiography and Breast ImagingFrench-language works237,207