MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046230645 · doi:10.1148/rycan.2020190053

Interrogating Cellular Communication in Cancer with Genetically Encoded Imaging Reporters

2020· review· en· W3046230645 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Seth T. Gammon, Tracy Liu, David Piwnica‐Worms

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology Imaging Cancer · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMolecular imagingComputational biologyContext (archaeology)Translation (biology)Live cell imagingPhotoacoustic imaging in biomedicineDrug discoveryBiologyGenome editingGeneCell biologyGenomeCellBioinformaticsIn vivoGeneticsMessenger RNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cells continuously communicate changes in their microenvironment, both locally and globally, with other cells in the organism. Integration of information arising from signaling networks impart continuous, time-dependent changes of cell function and phenotype. Use of genetically encoded reporters enable researchers to noninvasively monitor time-dependent changes in intercellular and intracellular signaling, which can be interrogated by macroscopic and microscopic optical imaging, nuclear medicine imaging, MRI, and even photoacoustic imaging techniques. Reporters enable noninvasive monitoring of changes in cell-to-cell proximity, transcription, translation, protein folding, protein association, protein degradation, drug action, and second messengers in real time. Because of their positive impact on preclinical research, attempts to improve the sensitivity and specificity of these reporters, and to develop new types and classes of reporters, remain an active area of investigation. A few reporters have migrated to proof-of-principle clinical demonstrations, and recent advances in genome editing technologies may enable the use of reporters in the context of genome-wide analysis and the imaging of complex genomic regulation in vivo that cannot be readily investigated through standard methodologies. The combination of genetically encoded imaging reporters with continuous improvements in other molecular biology techniques may enhance and expedite target discovery and drug development for cancer interventions and treatment. © RSNA, 2020.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiology Imaging CancerSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207