MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332292434 · doi:10.1093/mutage/geu002

Impact of a complex nutraceutical supplement on primary tumour formation and metastasis in Trp53+/– cancer-prone mice

2014· article· en· W2332292434 on OpenAlexaff
Vadim Aksenov, Douglas R. Boreham, C. David Rollo

Bibliographic record

VenueMutagenesis · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related Molecular Pathways
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLongevityLung cancerMetastasisCancerMedicineNutraceuticalCarcinogenesisInternal medicineAdenocarcinomaCause of deathOncologyPhysiologyPathologyGerontologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A complex dietary supplement designed to impact multiple mechanisms associated with aging and cancer reduced overall tumorigenesis in cancer-prone heterozygous Trp53+/- mice by ~30% (P < 0.018). Carcinomas were reduced by 67% (P < 0.006). Remarkably, metastasis (a leading cause of cancer mortality) was undetectable in treated animals (P < 0.004), and the occurrence of multiple primary tumours was reduced by 74% (P < 0.012). Reduction of pulmonary adenocarcinoma by 62% (P < 0.021) was of particular note given that lung cancer is the second leading cause of death in humans. Tumours showed pronounced age-related expression in untreated animals older than 600 days. Benefits of treatment only emerged in these later ages, suggesting that the supplement acted on mechanisms common to aging and cancer. The supplement was administered daily on bagel bits that were usually eaten within minutes by the mice. Although longevity was not statistically different between treatments, longevity was strongly related to the compliance of mice in eating the supplement. Linear regression revealed a strong positive relationship between the proportion of supplement eaten and the longevity of mice within the treatment group (P < 0.0001).

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMutagenesisSame topicCancer-related Molecular PathwaysFrench-language works237,207