MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158401328 · doi:10.1017/s146239940800077x

Critical molecular abnormalities in high-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary

2008· review· en· W2158401328 on OpenAlexafffund
Martin Köbel, David G. Huntsman, C. Blake Gilks

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Reviews in Molecular Medicine · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalBC Cancer Agency
FundersEli Lilly CanadaMichael Smith Health Research BCNational Cancer InstituteSanofi
KeywordsCDKN2ASerous fluidSerous carcinomaOvarian carcinomaCarcinogenesisBiologyOvarian cancerCancer researchOvarySerous ovarian cancerPathologyCarcinomaClear cell carcinomaOncologyGeneCancerMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ovarian carcinomas show more morphological heterogeneity than adenocarcinomas of any other body site. It has recently become clear that the morphologically defined subtypes of ovarian carcinoma are distinct diseases, with different risk factors, molecular events during oncogenesis, likelihood of spread, responses to chemotherapy, and outcomes. This review focuses on molecular abnormalities (in genes expressing BRCA1/2, TP53 and RB1/CCND1/CDKN2A/E2F) found in high-grade serous carcinomas of the ovary, which account for most ovarian cancer deaths. These highly aggressive but chemosensitive tumours are associated with perturbation of molecular pathways leading to genomic instability and extreme mutability and present unique challenges in oncological research and practice.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations57
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Reviews in Molecular MedicineSame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207