Visualization and Analysis in the Field of Pan-Cancer Studies and Its Application in Breast Cancer Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although all cancers are molecularly distinct, many share common driver mutations. Pan-cancer analysis, utilizes next-generation sequencing (NGS), pan-cancer model systems, and pan-cancer projects such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), to assess frequently mutated genes and other genomic abnormalities that are common among many cancer types, regardless of the tumor origin, providing new directions for tumor biology research. However, there is currently no study that has objectively analyzed the results of pan-cancer studies on cancer biology. For this study, 999 articles on pan-cancer published from 2006 to 2020 were obtained from the Scopus database, and bibliometric methods were used to analyze citations, international cooperation, co-authorship and keyword co-occurrence clusters. Furthermore, we also focused on and summarized the application of pan-cancer in breast cancer. Our result shows that the pan-cancer studies were first published in 2006 and entered a period of rapid development after 2013. So far, 86 countries have carried out international cooperation in sharing research. Researchers form the United States and Canada have published the most articles and have made the most extensive contribution to this field, respectively. Through author keyword analysis of the 999 articles, TCGA, biomarkers, NGS, immunotherapy, DNA methylation, prognosis, and several other keywords appear frequently, and these terms are hot spots in pan-cancer studies. There are four subtypes of breast cancer (luminalA, luminalB, HER2, and basal-like) according to pan-cancer analysis of breast cancer. Meanwhile, it was found that breast cancer has genetic similarity to pan-gynecological cancers, such as ovarian cancer, which indicates related etiology and possibly similar treatments. Collectively, with the emergence of new detection methods, new cancer databases, and the involvement of more researchers, pan-cancer analyses will play a greater role in cancer biology research.
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) | 0.000 | 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".