MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2779522923 · doi:10.1002/jcb.26644

RBM10: Harmful or helpful‐many factors to consider

2017· review· en· W2779522923 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cellular Biochemistry · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA modifications and cancer
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences North
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RBM10 is an RNA binding motif (RBM) protein expressed in most, if not all, human and animal cells. Interest in RBM10 is rapidly increasing and its clinical importance is highlighted by its identification as the causative agent of TARP syndrome, a developmental condition that significantly impacts affected children. RBM10's cellular functions are beginning to be explored, with initial studies demonstrating a tumor suppressor role. Very recently, however, contradictory results have emerged, suggesting a tumor promoter role for RBM10. In this review, we describe the current state of knowledge on RBM10, and address this dichotomy in RBM10 function. Furthermore, we discuss what may be regulating RBM10 function, particularly the importance of RBM10 alternative splicing, and the relationship between RBM10 and its paralogue, RBM5. As RBM10-related work is gaining momentum, it is critical that the various aspects of RBM10 molecular biology revealed by recent studies be considered moving forward. It is only if these recent advances in RBM10 structure and function are considered that a clearer insight into RBM10 function, and the disease states with which RBM10 mutation is associated, will be gained.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.277 · 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