MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W35100722

Increase in gene-transcript levels as indicators of up-regulation of the unfolded protein response in spontaneous canine tumors.

2014· article· en· W35100722 on OpenAlexaff
Kirsten Elliot, Valerie MacDonald-Dickinson, Kathleen Linn, Elemir Simko, Vikram Misra

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMolecular biologyMetastasisUnfolded protein responseGeneCancer researchGene expressionBiologyAngiogenesisMedicineCancerGenetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The unfolded protein response (UPR), a conserved cellular response to stressors such as hypoxia and nutrient deprivation, is associated with angiogenesis and metastasis in tumor cells. This article discusses a pilot study conducted to determine whether components of the UPR could be identified in spontaneous canine tumors and whether they were up-regulated within tumor tissue compared with adjacent normal tissue. Tissue samples of various spontaneous canine neoplasms were taken from 13 dogs shortly after surgical excision or euthanasia; control samples were taken from adjacent normal tissue. RNA purification and real-time quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction were done to measure the expression of 4 genes associated with the UPR (HERP, CHOP, GRP78, and XBP1s). The results indicated that UPR gene expression can be identified in spontaneous canine tumors and that the UPR is up-regulated, as indicated by significantly increased expression of CHOP and GRP78 within the tumor.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicCancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism→French-language works237,207→