MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012281649 · doi:10.21037/tcr.2020.02.51

Multiple roles of THY1 in gastric cancer based on data mining

2020· article· en· W3012281649 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yun Hu, Dongmei Jin, Yichan Zhou, Ye Cheng, Hongyong Cao, Yong Ma, Wenling Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Cancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceMcMaster University
KeywordsCD90CancerCancer researchBiologyInternal medicineOncologyImmunologyMedicineCellGeneticsCD44

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: THY1 (CD90) is a heavily N-glycosylated, glycophosphatidylinositol (GPI) anchored cell surface protein, which has been implicated in several cancers. But, the specific mechanism and function of the THY1 gene remains unclear in gastric cancer (GC). METHODS: To investigate the function of THY1 in GC and illustrate the potential mechanism, TCGA and FIREBROWSE were used to detect the THY1expression. GEPIA2 and Kaplan-Meier Plotter showed significant correlation among THY1 mRNA level, TNM stage and survival probability of GC patients. RESULTS: THY1 was up-regulated apparently in GC in contrast to normal tissues and linked to TNM stage. GC patients with higher THY1 expression displayed lower overall survival (OS), first progression (FP) and post-progression survival (PPS). In vitro experiments showed that knockdown of THY1 suppressed proliferation, migration while increased autophagy level in GC cells. Immune factors may interact with THY1mRNA in GC and THY1 was found significantly linked with Tregs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that higher THY1 level is link to poor prognosis of GC patients. THY1may as well be used as a marker molecule for evaluating the tumor microenvironment status of GC patients and a target for immunotherapy.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslational Cancer ResearchSame topicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins ResearchFrench-language works237,207