MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2289095709 · doi:10.1186/s12976-016-0035-4

Toward precision medicine of breast cancer

2016· review· en· W2289095709 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicolas Carels, Lizania Spinassé, Tatiana Martins Tilli, Jack A. Tuszyński

Bibliographic record

VenueTheoretical Biology and Medical Modelling · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAllard FoundationConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorAlberta Cancer Foundation
KeywordsPrecision medicineBreast cancerContext (archaeology)Personalized medicineCancer MedicineCancerMedicineMedical physicsBioinformaticsComputational biologyComputer scienceData scienceBiologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this review, we report on breast cancer's molecular features and on how high throughput technologies are helping in understanding the dynamics of tumorigenesis and cancer progression with the aim of developing precision medicine methods. We first address the current state of the art in breast cancer therapies and challenges in order to progress towards its cure. Then, we show how the interaction of high-throughput technologies with in silico modeling has led to set up useful inferences for promising strategies of target-specific therapies with low secondary effect incidence for patients. Finally, we discuss the challenge of pharmacogenetics in the clinical practice of cancer therapy. All these issues are explored within the context of precision medicine.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations62
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheoretical Biology and Medical ModellingSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207