Chromosome Instability; Implications in Cancer Development, Progression, and Clinical Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chromosome instability (CIN) refers to an ongoing rate of chromosomal changes and is a driver of genetic, cell-to-cell heterogeneity. It is an aberrant phenotype that is intimately associated with cancer development and progression. The presence, extent, and level of CIN has tremendous implications for the clinical management and outcomes of those living with cancer. Despite its relevance in cancer, there is still extensive misuse of the term CIN, and this has adversely impacted our ability to identify and characterize the molecular determinants of CIN. Though several decades of genetic research have provided insight into CIN, the molecular determinants remain largely unknown, which severely limits its clinical potential. In this review, we provide a definition of CIN, describe the two main types, and discuss how it differs from aneuploidy. We subsequently detail its impact on cancer development and progression, and describe how it influences metastatic potential with reference to cancer prognosis and outcomes. Finally, we end with a discussion of how CIN induces genetic heterogeneity to influence the use and efficacy of several precision medicine strategies, including patient and risk stratification, as well as its impact on the acquisition of drug resistance and disease recurrence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".