MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2614902590 · doi:10.1101/gad.296962.117

Focus on cutaneous and uveal melanoma specificities

2017· review· en· W2614902590 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Charlotte Pandiani, Guillaume E. Béranger, J. C. Leclerc, Robert Ballotti, Corine Bertolotto

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes & Development · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Cancer ResearchInstitut National Du CancerFondation ARC pour la Recherche sur le CancerUniversity of BathLigue Contre le CancerUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsBiologyMelanomaEmbryonic stem cellIdentification (biology)Signalling pathwaysCancer researchScope (computer science)GeneComputational biologyBioinformaticsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cutaneous melanoma (CM) and uveal melanoma (UM) derive from cutaneous and uveal melanocytes that share the same embryonic origin and display the same cellular function. However, the etiopathogenesis and biological behaviors of these melanomas are very different. CM and UM display distinct landscapes of genetic alterations and show different metastatic routes and tropisms. Hence, therapeutic improvements achieved in the last few years for the treatment of CM have failed to ameliorate the clinical outcomes of patients with UM. The scope of this review is to discuss the differences in tumorigenic processes (etiologic factors and genetic alterations) and tumor biology (gene expression and signaling pathways) between CM and UM. We develop hypotheses to explain these differences, which might provide important clues for research avenues and the identification of actionable vulnerabilities suitable for the development of new therapeutic strategies for metastatic UM.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations100
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes & DevelopmentSame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207