MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160359883 · doi:10.5539/cco.v1n1p102

The Frequency and Clinical Significance of Sister Chromatid Exchange in the Lymphocyte of Gastric Cancer Patient Exposed to Hypoxia

2012· article· en· W2160359883 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dae-Kwang Kim, Jae‐Ho Lee, Inho Kim, Dae‐Kyu Song, In-Jang Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer and Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSister chromatid exchangeCancerLymphocyteHypoxia (environmental)MedicineInternal medicineSister chromatidsGastroenterologyImmunologyOncologyBiologyIn vitroChemistryGeneticsOxygen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The frequency of sister chromatid exchange (SCE) in patients with gastric cancer is significantly higher than that in normal individuals; however, their characteristics have not been studied. In present study, we analyzed the correlation between the cytogenetic instability of gastric cancer patients’ peripheral lymphocytes with or without hypoxia and the characteristics of gastric cancer patients. The primary lymphocyte cultures obtained from blood samples of 40 healthy donors and 69 patients with gastric cancer were examined using SCE. The average of SCE frequency in gastric cancer was 5.91 ± 2.03/cell and the SCE phenotype was not associated with gender, tumor grade, Lauren classification, and H.pylori infection. Hypoxia increased the SCE frequency as compared with normoxia, in both the control and gastric cancer lymphocyte cultures (P < 0.001). The hypoxic effect in gastric cancer was not associated with gender, tumor grade, Lauren classification, and H.pylori infection. In conclusion, hypoxia did not facilitate an increase of SCE in the lymphocytes of the gastric cancer.

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)0.001
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 score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer and Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207