MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198465645 · doi:10.3390/jpm11090852

Association of Breast Tumour Expression of Cannabinoid Receptors CBR1 and CBR2 with Prognostic Factors and Survival in Breast Cancer Patients

2021· article· en· W3198465645 on OpenAlexafffund
Jessica Morin-Buote, Kaoutar Ennour‐Idrissi, Éric Poirier, Julie Lemieux, Daniela Furrer, Anna Burguin, Francine Durocher, Caroline Diorio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personalized Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Saint-SacrementUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineOncologyInternal medicineProportional hazards modelCancerPathologicalImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cannabinoid receptors (CBR) are potential therapeutic targets for breast cancer. However, the role of CBR in breast cancer survival remains poorly understood. Data from a prospective cohort of 522 women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2010 and 2012 were analysed. Clinical and pathological features were retrieved from electronic medical records. CBR expression was measured by immunohistochemistry. Adjusted partial Spearman correlations and multivariate Cox models were used to estimate associations with breast cancer prognostic factors and survival, respectively. The median follow-up was 92.0 months (range 7.0–114.0). CBR expression was heterogenous in tumours. Cytoplasmic expression of CBR1 was positively correlated with lymph node invasion (rs = 0.110; p = 0.0155) and positive status of the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) (rs = 0.168; p = 0.0002), while nuclear CBR2 was negatively correlated with grade (rs = −0.171; p = 0.0002) and positively correlated with oestrogen receptor and progesterone receptor-positive status (rs = 0.173; p = 0.0002 and rs = 0.121; p = 0.0084, respectively). High cytoplasmic expression of CBR2 was associated, with 13% higher locoregional and distant recurrences (HR = 1.13 [0.97–1.33]), though this association did not reach statistical significance. Although the few events occurring during follow-up may have limited the detection of significant associations, these results indicate that CBR expression in breast cancer deserves further investigation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personalized MedicineSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207