MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2479420012 · doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a026583

Spatial Heterogeneity in the Tumor Microenvironment

2016· review· en· W2479420012 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
FundersAssociazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul CancroNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchWellcome Trust
KeywordsTumor microenvironmentContext (archaeology)Spatial heterogeneityBiologySpatial contextual awarenessEcologyComputer scienceComputational biologyData scienceImmune systemArtificial intelligenceImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent developments in studies of tumor heterogeneity have provoked new thoughts on cancer management. There is a desperate need to understand influence of the tumor microenvironment on cancer development and evolution. Applying principles and quantitative methods from ecology can suggest novel solutions to fulfil this need. We discuss spatial heterogeneity as a fundamental biological feature of the microenvironment, which has been largely ignored. Histological samples can provide spatial context of diverse cell types coexisting within the microenvironment. Advanced computer-vision techniques have been developed for spatial mapping of cells in histological samples. This has enabled the applications of experimental and analytical tools from ecology to cancer research, generating system-level knowledge of microenvironmental spatial heterogeneity. We focus on studies of immune infiltrate and tumor resource distribution, and highlight statistical approaches for addressing the emerging challenges based on these new approaches.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.281 · 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