MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170903436 · doi:10.1183/09031936.00032011

Microsatellite alterations at 3p and 19q in EBC DNA of smokers: are they reversible after smoking cessation?: Table 1–

2011· letter· en· W2170903436 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Giovanna Elisiana Carpagnano, Donato Lacedonia, Grazia Pia Palladino, Maria Pia Foschino Barbaro

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSmoking cessationMedicineInternal medicineMicrosatelliteExhaled breath condensateOncologyLung cancerSmokePathologyAsthmaGeneGeneticsAlleleBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carcinogens in cigarette smoke may leave fingerprints in the bronchial tissue in the form of specific mutations that initiate cancer development [1]. Numerous genetic alterations have been recognised as critical effects of cigarette smoke and studied in the airways of current and former smokers. Microsatellite alterations (MAs) at 3p and 19q are among the most studied, being considered useful markers of genetic susceptibility and genome destabilisation in susceptible smokers [2, 3]. Instability and/or loss of heterozygosity at 3p and 19q have largely been reported in the lung tissue, sputum and blood of smokers and lung tumour patients [2, 4]. These mutations, which are considered an early effect of cigarette smoke, are dose-dependent and related to the number of cigarettes smoked in a lifetime [3]. In addition, short-term exposure to cigarette smoke seems to cause MAs at 3p that are not necessarily a consequence of the development of a neoplastic mass [5].

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207