MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155891694 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.10725

An Analysis of WNT5A expression in Wilms’ Tumour

2018· article· en· W3155891694 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicholas Laughton

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyWilms' tumorKidneyKidney developmentReal-time polymerase chain reactionGene expressionMessenger RNAGeneMolecular biologyCancer researchEndocrinologyGeneticsEmbryonic stem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wilms’ tumour is a pediatric tumour of the kidney that appears to be the result of abherrent embryonal renal development. The paired­box (PAX) gene family has previously been implicated in Wilm’s tumorogenesis. In this study, Nickel­Agarose Chromatin Enrichment (NACE) was used to identify genes whose expression is regulated by the ranscription cofactor Pax2. Of the genes identified by NACE, the extracellular signal metabolite WNT5A was chosen fro further study. The expression of WNT5A was measured in a set of tumour samples using quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (qRT­PCR) and compared to a human fetal kidney control. Of the 38 samples tested, 76% showed significantly lower levelsof cytosolic messenger RNA (mRNA). This data, in conjunction with published data on Pax2 expression, suggests Pax2 inhibits the expression of WNT5A. When compared with histological reports for the tumours we examined, the expression data implies that WNT5A may have a role in regulation of tubule growth in the developing kidney

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207