MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169741256 · doi:10.1093/clinchem/48.8.1170

Application of Microarrays to the Analysis of Gene Expression in Cancer

2002· article· en· W2169741256 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDNA microarrayMicroarrayGene expressionDiseaseBiologyComputational biologyGeneMicroarray analysis techniquesTissue microarrayGene expression profilingCancerBioinformaticsGene chip analysisMolecular diagnosticsPathologyCancer researchMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular diagnostics is a rapidly advancing field in which insights into disease mechanisms are being elucidated by use of new gene-based biomarkers. Until recently, diagnostic and prognostic assessment of diseased tissues and tumors relied heavily on indirect indicators that permitted only general classifications into broad histologic or morphologic subtypes and did not take into account the alterations in individual gene expression. Global expression analysis using microarrays now allows for simultaneous interrogation of the expression of thousands of genes in a high-throughput fashion and offers unprecedented opportunities to obtain molecular signatures of the state of activity of diseased cells and patient samples. Microarray analysis may provide invaluable information on disease pathology, progression, resistance to treatment, and response to cellular microenvironments and ultimately may lead to improved early diagnosis and innovative therapeutic approaches for 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.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.313 · 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