MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116079182

Chromosomal aberrations in breast cancer tumors using cDNA microarray CGH.

2005· article· en· W3116079182 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lucine Bosnoyan-Collins, Sarah Colby, Nalan Gökgöz, Sean W. Minaker, Shelley B. Bull, Irene L. Andrulis

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparative genomic hybridizationComplementary DNACopy number analysisMicroarrayBiologyBreast cancerCancerTissue microarrayMolecular biologyBioconductorCopy-number variationGeneticsPathologyChromosomeGeneGene expressionMedicineGenome
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

105 In this study we have taken advantage of a large cohort of axillary node negative (ANN) breast cancer patients to look for the chromosomal aberrations using array based comparative genomic hybridization (a-CGH). To date we have completed a-CGH on more than 50 ANN tumors from a cohort of cases from the Toronto area. In order to confirm that our experimental microarray platform could be used to assess CGH we used tumor cell lines including BT474, UACC812, T47D, SKBR3 and found several different amplification and deletions to be consistent with published results from several laboratories using different microarray platforms. The same optimum conditions used in those experiments were applied to tumor genomic DNA where 1ug of Alu1 and Rsa1 digested genomic DNA was labeled with Cy3 and control placenta DNA was labeled with Cy5 using random Bioprime labeling kit. After overnight labeling the labeled products were purified, pooled together and hybridized on 19K cDNA microarray chips. The fluorescence intensity of the fluors was quantitated using an Axon scanner and the quantity was converted into an actual signal to noise ratio using GenePix Pro. In the first stage of the analysis, we delineated regions of chromosomal loss and gain for each patient using the Olshen Bioconductor package DNAcopy. Each region was assigned an alteration type (i.e., normal, loss /deletion, gain/amplification) based on the log2 copy number ratios of the contained clones. In the second stage of the analysis, the alterations were tabulated across patients yielding a ranking according to alteration frequency of the top regions for further examination. Overall, 58 regions of gain and 31 regions of loss were identified. Many of the regions of alterations detected are known genes or candidate oncogenes such as ERBB2 at 17q12, CND1 at 11q13, FGFR1 at8p11.2-11.1 and MYC at 8q24.12-q24.13. Hence from these observations we conclude that array based CGH may be useful for the identification of new genetic targets in breast cancer tumorigenesis.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207