MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044709294 · doi:10.1080/01635581.2020.1795210

Isolated Soy Protein Promotes Mammary Tumor Development Induced by the Type I Insulin-like Growth Factor Receptor in Transgenic Mice

2020· article· en· W3044709294 on OpenAlexafffund
Katrina L. Watson, Kristen Sauerzopf, Roger A. Moorehead

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition and Cancer · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytoestrogen effects and research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMammary tumorCarcinogenesisEndocrinologyMammary glandBiologyInternal medicineSoy proteinRatónGenetically modified mouseCaseinTransgeneReceptorCancerBreast cancerMedicineBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies suggest consuming soy may protect women from breast cancer. In this study, lifetime exposure to 20%, 5% and 1% ISP in MTB-IGFIR mice (mammary-specific expression of IGF-IR) were evaluated to determine whether ISP could protect against mammary tumorigenesis. MTB-IGFIR mice fed ISP diets displayed increased mammary tumor incidence and reduced tumor latency compared to mice fed 20% casein. To evaluate whether a diet containing a less refined form of soy could protect against mammary tumor development MTB-IGFIR mice were fed Teklad 2018 (contains soybean meal). MTB-IGFIR mice fed the Teklad 2018 diet were completely protected against mammary tumor development. To determine whether dietary ISP was sufficient to induce mammary tumorigenesis, MTB-IGFIR mice were fed Teklad 2018ISP (soybean meal of Teklad 2018 was replaced with an equivalent amount of ISP). Only two of 10 MTB-IGFIR mice fed Teklad 2018ISP developed mammary tumors. This study demonstrates the complex interaction between soy and other dietary components in modifying mammary tumor development.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition and CancerSame topicPhytoestrogen effects and researchFrench-language works237,207