MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040933130 · doi:10.1002/path.5505

Spontaneously occurring melanoma in animals and their relevance to human melanoma

2020· review· en· W3040933130 on OpenAlexafffund
Louise van der Weyden, Thomas Brenn, E. Elizabeth Patton, Geoffrey A. Wood, David J. Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Pathology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer ResearchUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Calgary
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilMedical Research Council CanadaCancer Research UKWellcome TrustMedical Research CouncilMelanoma Research Alliance
KeywordsMelanomaRelevance (law)MedicineDermatologyBiologyCancer researchPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In contrast to other cancer types, melanoma incidence has been increasing over the last 50 years, and while it still represents less than 5% of all cutaneous malignancies, melanoma accounts for the majority of skin cancer deaths, due to its propensity to metastasise. Whilst melanoma most commonly affects the skin, it can also arise in mucosal surfaces, the eye, and the brain. For new therapies to be developed, a better understanding of the genetic landscape, signalling pathways, and tumour-microenvironmental interactions is needed. This is where animal models are of critical importance. The mouse is the foremost used model of human melanoma. Arguably this is due to its plethora of benefits as a laboratory animal; however, it is important to note that unlike humans, melanocytes are not present at the dermal-epidermal junction in mice and mice do not develop melanoma without genetic manipulation. In contrast, there are numerous reports of animals that spontaneously develop melanoma, ranging from sharks and parrots to hippos and monkeys. In addition, several domesticated and laboratory-bred animals spontaneously develop melanoma or UV-induced melanoma, specifically, fish, opossums, pigs, horses, cats, and dogs. In this review, we look at spontaneously occurring animal 'models' of melanoma and discuss their relevance to the different types of melanoma found in humans. © 2020 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland..

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations75
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PathologySame topicVirus-based gene therapy researchFrench-language works237,207