MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2532595713 · doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a028373

The Role of Aneuploidy in Cancer Evolution

2016· review· en· W2532595713 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStand Up To CancerCancer Research UKNovo Nordisk FondenUniversity College LondonNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNovo NordiskCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRoyal SocietyFrancis Crick InstituteEuropean Molecular Biology OrganizationProstate Cancer FoundationCRUK Lung Cancer Centre of ExcellenceBreast Cancer Research Foundation
KeywordsKingdomCancerExcellenceLung cancerGenealogyMedicineBiologyHistoryGeneticsLawPolitical scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chromosomal aberrations during cell division represent one of the first recognized features of human cancer cells, and modern detection methods have revealed the pervasiveness of aneuploidy in cancer. The ongoing karyotypic changes brought about by chromosomal instability (CIN) contribute to tumor heterogeneity, drug resistance, and treatment failure. Whole-chromosome and segmental aneuploidies resulting from CIN have been proposed to allow "macroevolutionary" leaps that may contribute to profound phenotypic change. In this review, we will outline evidence indicating that aneuploidy and CIN contribute to cancer evolution.

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 score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.270 · 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