MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2259869327 · doi:10.1111/his.12795

Biomarker assessment and molecular testing for prognostication in breast cancer

2015· review· en· W2259869327 on OpenAlexaff
Zuzana Kos, David J. Dabbs

Bibliographic record

VenueHistopathology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerBiomarkerMolecular pathologyProgesterone receptorBiomarker discoveryCancerMedicineOncologyMolecular biomarkersPathologicalInternal medicineOestrogen receptorTargeted therapyBioinformaticsPathologyEstrogen receptorBiologyGeneProteomicsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current treatment of breast cancer incorporates clinical, pathological and molecular data. Oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) define prognosis and identify tumours for targeted therapy, and remain the sole established single-molecule biomarkers defining the minimum breast cancer pathology data set. Ki67 remains one of the most promising yet controversial biomarkers in breast cancer, implemented routinely in some, but not all, pathology departments. Beyond the single-molecule biomarkers, a host of multigene expression tests have been developed to interrogate the driver pathways and biology of individual breast cancers to predict clinical outcome more accurately. A minority of these assays have entered into clinical practice. This review focuses on the established biomarkers of ER, PR and HER2, the controversial but clinically implemented biomarker Ki67 and the currently marketed gene expression signatures.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations73
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistopathologySame topicHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchFrench-language works237,207