Vessel co‐option in primary human tumors and metastases: an obstacle to effective anti‐angiogenic treatment?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Angiogenesis has been regarded as essential for tumor growth and progression. Studies of many human tumors, however, suggest that their microcirculation may be provided by nonsprouting vessels and that a variety of tumors can grow and metastasize without angiogenesis. Vessel co-option, where tumor cells migrate along the preexisting vessels of the host organ, is regarded as an alternative tumor blood supply. Vessel co-option may occur in many malignancies, but so far mostly reported in highly vascularized tissues such as brain, lung, and liver. In primary and metastatic lung cancer and liver metastasis from different primary origins, as much as 10-30% of the tumors are reported to use this alternative blood supply. In addition, vessel co-option is introduced as a potential explanation of antiangiogenic drug resistance, although the impact of vessel co-option in this clinical setting is still to be further explored. In this review we discuss tumor vessel co-option with specific examples of vessel co-option in primary and secondary tumors and a consideration of the clinical implications of this alternative tumor blood supply.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it