MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586598566

Comparing Tyrosine Phosphorylation Changes after Erlotinib Treatment betweem Drug Sensitive and Drug Resistant Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Lines by Mass Spectrometry

2010· dissertation· en· W2586598566 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Warren Shih

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2010
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsErlotinibDrugLung cancerMass spectrometryPharmacologyCancer researchChemistryCancerMedicineOncologyInternal medicineChromatographyEpidermal growth factor receptor
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-Small-Cell-Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients with mutations in EGFR have greater response rates and survival when treated with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib. To elucidate how erlotinib inhibits EGFR, this study included: 1) inhibiting an EGFR mutant cell line to reveal EGFR regulated phosphotyrosine (pY) sites; 2) comparing erlotinib sensitive and insensitive cell lines to reveal functionally important pY sites; 3) revealing novel pY sites. Observations were collected using the LTQ-Orbitrap mass spectrometer. This study identified five new EGFR regulated pY sites and five pY sites that correlated with erlotinib sensitivity; the majority of them are related to cell-cell interactions. By comparing all observed pY sites to the Phosphosite and PhosphoELM database, our results included 67 unregistered sites. This study has identified novel biomarkers and potential therapeutic targets, many of which were associated with cell migration and adhesion function. Further functional validation is necessary.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207