MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2419200639

Clinically relevant oral cancer model for serum proteomic eavesdropping on the tumour microenvironment.

2006· article· en· W2419200639 on OpenAlexaff
Richard L. Balys, Moulay A. Alaoui‐Jamali, Michael Hier, Martin Black, Gerard F. Domanowski, Louise Rochon, Jie Su

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSalivary Gland Disorders and Functions
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecologyMolecular biologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Serum proteomics has enormous potential in the identification of biomarkers and the development of new therapies for oral cancer. Current efforts are limited by the lack of a control subject. The human-mouse chimeric model offers a solution. OBJECTIVES: To develop and test two orthotopic xenograft mouse models of human oral squamous cell carcinoma for research in serum proteomics. METHODS: Advanced human oral cancer from three patients was implanted orthotopically into the tongues of 19 SCID and 4 RAG2/gamma(c) knockout (KO) mice. Adjacent normal tissue from each patient was also implanted into nine SCID and 4 RAG2/gamma(c) KO mice. The models were compared for tissue take, the presence of metastasis, and histologic invasiveness. Mouse serum was preserved for studies in serum proteomics. RESULTS: Tumour tissue was successfully implanted into SCID and RAG2/gamma(c) mice, and the invasiveness was confirmed pathologically. Three of the control mice demonstrated the persistence of normal tissue more than 1 month after implantation. This is the first time that this has been reported. The larger size of the RAG2/gamma(c) KO mouse facilitated serum collection for serum proteomics. CONCLUSIONS: Both RAG2/gamma(c) KO and SCID mouse are able to reliably engraft human oral cancer. Engraftment of normal oral tissue was less reliable. This is the first in vivo model allowing identification of proteins released from the tumour microenvironment.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.262
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSalivary Gland Disorders and FunctionsFrench-language works237,207