MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211214656 · doi:10.3389/pore.2022.1610293

Expression and Potential Prognostic Value of SOX9, MCL-1 and SPOCK1 in Gastric Adenocarcinoma

2022· article· en· W4211214656 on OpenAlexaff
Wenyi Luo, Teddy S. Nagaria, Hongxia Sun, Junsheng Ma, Jamie Lombardo, Roland L. Bassett, Austin C. Cao, Dongfeng Tan

Bibliographic record

VenuePathology & Oncology Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalignancyCancerInternal medicineCohortOncologyMedicineImmunohistochemistryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gastric cancer is a common malignancy and remains one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths, though its incidence is in decline in most developed countries. One of the major challenges of treating gastric cancer is tumor heterogeneity, which portends a high degree of prognostic variance and the necessity for different treatment modalities. Tumor heterogeneity is at least in part due to divergent differentiation of tumor cells to clones harboring different molecular alterations. Here we studied the expression of emerging prognostic markers SOX9, MCL-1, and SPOCK1 (Testican-1) in a cohort of gastric cancer by immunohistochemistry and investigated how individual biomarkers and their combinations predict disease prognosis. We found frequent expression of SPOCK1 (in both nuclei and cytoplasm), MCL-1 and SOX9 in gastric cancer. In univariate analysis, nuclear SPOCK1 expression and pathologic TNM stage were negative prognostic markers in this cohort. In multivariate analysis, SOX9 expression stood out as a predictor of poor prognosis. Further subgroup analysis suggested prognostic value of SOX9 expression in poorly differentiated gastric adenocarcinoma. MCL-1 showed no prognostic role in this cohort.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.381
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePathology & Oncology ResearchSame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207