MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980342814 · doi:10.4149/neo_2019_190309n203

Chromosome 17 centromere amplification and chromosomal instability (CIN) in breast cancer: Pathogenic and therapeutic implications

2019· article· en· W2980342814 on OpenAlexaff
Ioannis A. Voutsadakis

Bibliographic record

VenueNeoplasma · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsSault Area HospitalEssar Steel Algoma (Canada)NOSM University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentromerePolysomyChromosome instabilityBreast cancerBiologyCancerGene duplicationChromosomeAneuploidyGeneticsCancer researchOncologyMedicineFluorescence in situ hybridizationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chromosomal instability (CIN) is present in variable degrees in a significant percentage (up to 90%) of cancers and often portends adverse outcomes. However, it has not been incorporated in clinical practice as a prognostic marker due to the lack of standardization and proof of clinical utility of assays to measure it, as well as uncertainties regarding optimal cut-offs. Amplification of the centromeric region of chromosome 17 as measured by In Situ Hybridization (ISH) of the CEP17 probe is used clinically as part of the ISH assay for HER2 status determination in breast cancer in cases with intermediate (2+) result of HER2 protein expression by immunohistochemistry. CEP17 amplification concerns the centromeric area and rarely extends beyond it to involve polysomy of the whole chromosome. The association of CEP17 amplification with generalized CIN remains uncertain. Such association, if confirmed, could be an opportunity for a practical and clinically validated test of CIN in breast cancer. This paper explores the association of CIN with centromere 17 amplification and with centromere function in general, as well as the pathophysiology of centromeres/kinetochore function during mitosis that underlies their relationship with CIN in cancer and in breast cancer in particular.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeoplasmaSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207