MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896121809

Gene expression profiling of hepatocellular cancer identifies a consistent pattern in cancerous and distant liver tissue: Arguments for a field defect

2005· article· en· W2896121809 on OpenAlexaff
George Zogopoulos, Limin Chen, Ivan Borozan, Jing Sun, Jenny Heathcote, Steven Gallinger, A.M. Edwards, I. McGilvray

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHepatocellular carcinomaLiver cancerGene expression profilingGene expressionPathologyLiver biopsyCancerChronic liver diseaseGeneContext (archaeology)BiologyLiver diseaseLiver tissueMicroarrayMedicineBiopsyCancer researchCirrhosisInternal medicineGenetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6099 The genetic changes that accompany hepatocellular cancer (HCC) are notoriously variable, though the cancer itself may develop in the context of an organ-wide field defect. We hypothesized that the pattern of gene expression reflecting such a field defect would persist in the HCC itself, and would be distinct from patterns of liver gene expression in chronic liver disease patients who have not developed HCC. Using a 19K human microarray, we determined gene expression levels in 15 HCC samples and 15 liver samples taken at least 5 cm away from the original HCC (distant liver tissue, DLT). These were compared to liver biopsies from patients with chronic liver disease but no HCC (86 HCV biopsies, 18 HBV biopsies). All gene expression changes were normalized to the baseline level of gene expression in 20 normal liver biopsies. Insisting on a high statistical filter (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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.320 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207