MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521913548 · doi:10.1530/jme-16-0150

Prolactin receptor in breast cancer: marker for metastatic risk

2016· review· en· W2521913548 on OpenAlexaff
Carrie S. Shemanko

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Molecular Endocrinology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsAlberta Cancer FoundationUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProlactinProlactin receptorBreast cancerContext (archaeology)MetastasisCancer researchReceptorCancerMedicineBiologyBioinformaticsInternal medicineHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prolactin and prolactin receptor signaling and function are complex in nature and intricate in function. Basic, pre-clinical and translational research has opened up our eyes to the understanding that prolactin and prolactin receptor signaling function differently within different cellular contexts and microenvironmental conditions. Its multiple roles in normal physiology are subverted in cancer initiation and progression, and gradually we are teasing out the intricacies of function and therapeutic value. Recently, we observed that prolactin has a role in accelerating the time to bone metastasis in breast cancer patients and identified the mechanism by which prolactin stimulated breast cancer cell-mediated lytic osteoclast formation. The possibility that the prolactin receptor is a marker for metastasis, and specifically bone metastasis, is one that may have to be put into the context of the different variants of prolactin, different prolactin receptor isoforms and intricate signaling pathways that are regulated by the microenvironment. The more complete the picture, the better one can test biomarker identity and design clinical trials to test therapeutic intervention. This review will cover the recent advances and highlight the complexity of prolactin receptor biology.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations43
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Molecular EndocrinologySame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207