MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176208106 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2021.107241

Datasets exploring putative lncRNA-miRNA-mRNA axes in breast cancer cell lines

2021· article· en· W3176208106 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie‐Claire D. Wasson, Justin M. Brown, Jaganathan Venkatesh, Wasundara Fernando, Paola Marcato

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersTerry Fox Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDalhousie UniversityDalhousie Medical Research Foundation
KeywordsmicroRNAGene knockdownBreast cancerBiologyMessenger RNAComputational biologyGeneCarcinogenesisGene expressionMicroarrayMicroarray analysis techniquesLong non-coding RNARNARegulation of gene expressionCancerBioinformaticsGeneticsCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long non-coding RNA (lncRNA)/microRNA (miRNA)/messenger RNA (mRNA) interactions regulate oncogenesis and tumour suppression in breast cancer. Oncogenic lncRNA/miRNA/mRNA axes may offer novel therapeutic targets; therefore, identifying such axes is a clinically relevant undertaking. To explore miRNAs regulated by oncogenic lncRNAs, we queried the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database to find datasets that profiled gene expression changes upon lncRNA knockdown in breast cancer. We identified four microarray datasets that permitted our interrogation of genes regulated by lncRNAs LincK, LincIN, SPRY4-IT1 and AC009283.1. We specifically analysed changes in miRNA transcripts within these datasets to study miRNAs regulated by each of the four lncRNAs. We subsequently identified the predicted mRNA targets for these miRNAs to uncover possible lncRNA/miRNA/mRNAs axes in breast cancer. These axes may be candidates for future investigation of gene regulation in breast cancer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.331
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicCancer-related molecular mechanisms researchFrench-language works237,207