MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990334011 · doi:10.3390/ijms20225818

MiRNAs as Players in Rhabdomyosarcoma Development

2019· review· en· W2990334011 on OpenAlexaff
Patrizia Gasparini, Andrea Ferrari, Michela Casanova, Francesca Limido, Maura Massimino, Gabriella Sozzi, Orazio Fortunato

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPediatric Oncology Group
FundersAssociazione Bianca GaravagliaFondazione Cariplo
KeywordsRhabdomyosarcomamicroRNAMalignancyBiologySoft tissue sarcomaSkeletal muscleBioinformaticsMesenchymal stem cellComputational biologyCancer researchMedicineSarcomaPathologyCell biologyGeneticsGeneEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS), the most common soft tissue sarcoma of childhood and adolescence, is a rare but aggressive malignancy that originates from immature mesenchymal cells committed to skeletal muscle differentiation. Although RMS is, generally, responsive to the modern multimodal therapeutic approaches, the prognosis of RMS depends on multiple variables and for some patients the outcome remains dismal. Further comprehension of the molecular and cellular biology of RMS would lead to identification of novel therapeutic targets. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small non-coding RNAs proved to function as key regulators of skeletal muscle cell fate determination and to play important roles in RMS pathogenesis. The purpose of this review is to better delineate the role of miRNAs as a biomarkers or functional leaders in RMS development, so to possibly elucidate some of RMS molecular mechanisms and potentially therapeutically target them to improve clinical management of pediatric RMS.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueInternational Journal of Molecular SciencesSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207