Replication Study: Wnt activity defines colon cancer stem cells and is regulated by the microenvironment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology we published a Registered Report (Evans et al., 2015), that described how we intended to replicate selected experiments from the paper ‘Wnt activity defines colon cancer stem cells and is regulated by the microenvironment’ (Vermeulen et al., 2010). Here, we report the results. Using three independent primary spheroidal colon cancer cultures that expressed a Wnt reporter construct we observed high Wnt activity was associated with the cell surface markers CD133, CD166, and CD29, but not CD24 and CD44, while the original study found all five markers were correlated with high Wnt activity (Figure 2F; Vermeulen et al., 2010). Clonogenicity was highest in cells with high Wnt activity and clonogenic potential of cells with low Wnt activity were increased by myofibroblast-secreted factors, including HGF. While the effects were in the same direction as the original study (Figure 6D; Vermeulen et al., 2010) whether statistical significance was reached among the different conditions varied. When tested in vivo, we did not find a difference in tumorigenicity between high and low Wnt activity, while the original study found cells with high Wnt activity were more effective in inducing tumors (Figure 7E; Vermeulen et al., 2010). Tumorigenicity, however, was increased with myofibroblast-secreted factors, which was in the same direction as the original study (Figure 7E; Vermeulen et al., 2010), but not statistically significant. Finally, we report meta-analyses for each results where possible.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".