In Vitro Model-Systems to Understand the Biology and Clinical Significance of Circulating Tumor Cell Clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The isolation of clusters of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) from cancer patients has recently challenged the accepted view that the initiation of secondary tumors during metastasis involves the dissemination of individual cancer cells. As such clusters appear to be more aggressive than single tumor cells, CTC clusters are now considered a main player in the metastatic process, and many studies are exploring their diagnostic, prognostic, and clinical significance. However, several technical challenges limit advances in this area. Here, we suggest the use of established cancer cell lines that grow as cell clusters in suspension as a complementary approach that can help in understanding the biology of CTC clusters and their clinical significance. We argue that the many similarities between these "surrogate" clusters and the CTC clusters isolated from patients (e.g., in terms of size, morphology, heterogeneous expression of epithelial and mesenchymal markers, and type of cell-cell junctions) make these cell lines ideal systems for the development of strategies aimed at preventing or slowing down the metastatic process by targeting CTC clusters.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".