MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159995107 · doi:10.5430/jst.v3n2p35

HIF-1alpha in lung carcinoma: Histopathological evidence of hypoxia targets in patient biopsies

2013· article· en· W2159995107 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Μαρία Ιωάννου, George Simos, George Κ. Koukoulis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Solid Tumors · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerHypoxia (environmental)ImmunohistochemistryRadiation therapyContext (archaeology)BiomarkerCarcinomaVascular endothelial growth factorLungOncologyInternal medicineCancer researchPathologyVEGF receptorsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hypoxia inducible factor 1alpha (HIF-1alpha) plays a major role in the response of tumors to hypoxia, and contributes to tumor aggressiveness, invasiveness and resistance to radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Targeting HIF-1alpha is an attractive strategy, with the potential for disrupting multiple pathways crucial for tumor growth. Thus, the evaluation of HIF-1alpha in patient biopsies could be useful in personalized cancer treatment. Methodology: The current literature on HIF-1alpha immunohistochemical expression is reviewed along with the relation to clinical outcome and prognosis. In addition, the significant correlation of HIF-1alpha to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression is reported, as well as the possible role of HIF-1alpha in predicting the therapeutic response to anti-EGFR therapies. Conclusion: Herein, an overview of the HIF-1alpha expression in lung carcinoma is presented. Since there is no consensus regarding the assessment of HIF-1alpha in tissue specimens, heterogeneous results have been reported especially regarding prognosis. In this context, methods to optimize the evaluation of HIF-1alpha in biopsies are needed in order to clarify the role of HIF-1alpha as a prognostic or predictive biomarker in lung carcinoma.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.255
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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Solid TumorsSame topicCancer, Hypoxia, and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207