MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2644262902

The association between the anti-inflammatory protein CC10 and smoking status among participants in a chemoprevention trial.

2006· article· en· W2644262902 on OpenAlexaff
Jiping Chen, Stephen Lam, Aprile L. Pilon, Éva Szabó

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBronchoalveolar lavageMedicineInternal medicineGastroenterologyLung cancerPlaceboLungPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5738 CC10 is a 10-kDa protein secreted by nonciliated Clara cells which are progenitor cells in the bronchiolar epithelium. CC10 is infrequently expressed in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and overexpression of CC10 in NSCLC cell lines results in a less malignant phenotype. CC10 levels in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) and serum are significantly lower in current smokers compared with healthy non-smokers, but it is not known whether long term smoking cessation results in restoration of CC10 expression. To determine whether smoking cessation plays a role in up-regulating the BAL and plasma CC10 levels, we used specimens collected during a chemoprevention trial assessing the efficacy of budesonide vs. placebo to regress bronchial dysplasia in current (n=80) and former (n=22) smokers. CC10 was measured by a competitive ELISA in baseline BAL and plasma specimens. Interestingly, current smokers appeared to have significantly lower baseline plasma CC10 levels compared to former smokers [mean 36.7 (95% CI: 29.4∼44.1); range (5.0∼171.0) ng/ml for current smokers, and mean 58.1 (95%CI: 39.9∼76.2); range (23.0∼175.0) ng/ml for former smokers, p

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→French-language works237,207→