MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213278745 · doi:10.3390/jcm11030687

The TSH/Thyroid Hormones Axis and Breast Cancer

2022· review· en· W4213278745 on OpenAlexaff
Ioannis A. Voutsadakis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityEssar Steel Algoma (Canada)Sault Area Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerNuclear receptorCalcitriol receptorInternal medicineThyroid hormone receptorEstrogen receptorReceptorThyroid cancerThyroidEndocrinologyHormoneCancerHormone receptorCancer researchBiologyTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast cancer, the most prevalent female carcinoma, is characterized by the expression of steroid nuclear receptors in a subset of cases. The most important nuclear receptor with prognostic and therapeutic implications is the Estrogen Receptor (ER), which is expressed in about three out of four breast cancers. The Progesterone Receptor (PR) and the Androgen Receptor (AR) are also commonly expressed. Moreover, non-steroid nuclear receptors, including the vitamin D receptor (VDR) and the thyroid receptors (TRs), are also present in breast cancers and have pathophysiologic implications. Circulating thyroid hormones may influence breast cancer risk and breast cancer cell survival, through ligating their canonical receptors TRα and TRβ but also through additional membrane receptors that are expressed in breast cancer. The expression of TR subtypes and their respective isotypes have diverse effects in breast cancers through co-operation with ER and influence on other cancer-associated pathways. Other components of the TSH/thyroid hormone axis, such as TSH and selenoiodinase enzymes, have putative effects in breast cancer pathophysiology. This paper reviews the pathophysiologic and prognostic implications of the thyroid axis in breast cancer and provides a brief therapeutic perspective.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicThyroid Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207