MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807058140 · doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2018.04.023

Basal-like Breast Cancers: From Pathology to Biology and Back Again

2018· review· en· W2807058140 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

VenueStem Cell Reports · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research Society
KeywordsBiologyBreast cancerBasal (medicine)PathologyPhysiologyCancerEndocrinologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human breast cancers referred to as "basal-like" are of interest because they lack effective therapies and their biology is poorly understood. The term basal-like derives from studies demonstrating tumor gene expression profiles that include some transcripts characteristic of the basal cells of the normal adult human mammary gland and others associated with a subset of normal luminal cells. Elucidating the mechanisms responsible for the profiles of basal-like tumors is an active area of investigation. More refined molecular analysis of patients' samples and genetic strategies to produce breast cancers de novo from defined populations of normal mouse mammary cells have served as complementary approaches to identify relevant pathway alterations. However, both also have limitations. Here, we review some of the underlying reasons, including the unifying concept that some normal luminal cells have both luminal and basal features, as well as some emerging new avenues of investigation.

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 score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.272 · 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