MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168808367 · doi:10.1186/2045-3329-2-19

Genetically engineered mouse models and human osteosarcoma

2012· article· en· W2168808367 on OpenAlexaff
Alvin JM Ng, Anthony J. Mutsaers, Emma K. Baker, Carl R. Walkley

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Sarcoma Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilState Government of Victoria
KeywordsOsteosarcomaMedicineSurgical oncologyGenetically engineeredComputational biologyCancer researchBioinformaticsInternal medicineGeneticsGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Osteosarcoma is the most common form of bone cancer. Pivotal insight into the genes involved in human osteosarcoma has been provided by the study of rare familial cancer predisposition syndromes. Three kindreds stand out as predisposing to the development of osteosarcoma: Li-Fraumeni syndrome, familial retinoblastoma and RecQ helicase disorders, which include Rothmund-Thomson Syndrome in particular. These disorders have highlighted the important roles of P53 and RB respectively, in the development of osteosarcoma. The association of OS with RECQL4 mutations is apparent but the relevance of this to OS is uncertain as mutations in RECQL4 are not found in sporadic OS. Application of the knowledge or mutations of P53 and RB in familial and sporadic OS has enabled the development of tractable, highly penetrant murine models of OS. These models share many of the cardinal features associated with human osteosarcoma including, importantly, a high incidence of spontaneous metastasis. The recent development of these models has been a significant advance for efforts to improve our understanding of the genetics of human OS and, more critically, to provide a high-throughput genetically modifiable platform for preclinical evaluation of new therapeutics.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations55
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Sarcoma ResearchSame topicVirus-based gene therapy researchFrench-language works237,207