Differential expression of TGFβ isoforms in breast cancer highlights different roles during breast cancer progression
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While TGFβ plays a critical role in tumor formation and progression, the role and contribution of its three different isoforms remain unclear. In this study, we aimed at elucidating the prognostic value of the TGFβ isoforms and assessed their expression levels in breast cancer patients at different stages of the disease. We found higher levels of TGFβ1 and TGFβ3 in cancer patients compared to normal tissues, with no significant changes in TGFβ2 expression. Similarly, TGFβ1 and TGFβ3, but not TGFβ2, showed higher expression levels in advanced lymph node-positive and metastatic tumors, suggesting different roles for the different isoforms in tumor progression and the metastatic process, while in the least aggressive molecular subtype (luminal A), expression of the three TGFβ isoforms significantly correlated with expression of both TGFβ receptors, such correlation only occurred between TGFβ1 and TGFβ3 and the TGFβ type II receptor (TβRII) in the highly aggressive basal-like subtype. Interestingly, a distinct and somehow opposite pattern was observed in HER-2 tumors, only showing significant association pattern between TGFβ2 and the TGFβ type I receptor (TβRI). Finally, the three TGFβ isoforms showed distinct association patterns with patient outcome depending on the different molecular subtype, highlighting context-dependent, differential prognostic values.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it