MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167281651 · doi:10.3390/cells10061409

Patterns of Gene Expression in Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma: Systematic Review of Transcriptomic Studies in Mycosis Fungoides

2021· review· en· W3167281651 on OpenAlexafffund
Melika Motamedi, Maggie Z. X. Xiao, Aishwarya Iyer, Robert Gniadecki

Bibliographic record

VenueCells · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Dermatology Foundation
KeywordsMycosis fungoidesTranscriptomeBiologyGeneLymphomaCutaneous T-cell lymphomaCell cycleImmune systemGene expressionCancer researchGeneticsImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most prevalent type of skin lymphoma. In its early stages, it has a favorable prognosis. However, in its late stages, it is associated with an increased risk of mortality. This systematic review aimed to identify the transcriptomic changes involved in MF pathogenesis and progression. A literature search was conducted using the database PubMed, followed by the extraction of 2245 genes which were further filtered to 150 recurrent genes that appeared in two or more publications. Categorization of these genes identified activated pathways involved in pathways such as cell cycle and proliferation, chromosomal instability, and DNA repair. We identified 15 genes implicated in MF progression, which were involved in cell proliferation, immune checkpoints, resistance to apoptosis, and immune response. In highlighting the discrepancies in the way MF transcriptomic data is obtained, further research can focus on not only unifying their approach but also focus on the 150 pertinent genes identified in this review.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCellsSame topicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders researchFrench-language works237,207