Preclinical Models of Brain Metastases in Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer remains a leading cause of mortality among women worldwide. Brain metastases confer extremely poor prognosis due to a lack of understanding of their specific biology, unique physiologic and anatomic features of the brain, and limited treatment strategies. A major roadblock in advancing the treatment of breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM) is the scarcity of representative experimental preclinical models. Current models are predominantly based on the use of animal xenograft models with immortalized breast cancer cell lines that poorly capture the disease's heterogeneity. Recent years have witnessed the development of patient-derived in vitro and in vivo breast cancer culturing systems that more closely recapitulate the biology from individual patients. These advances led to the development of modern patient-tissue-based experimental models for BCBM. The success of preclinical models is also based on the imaging technologies used to detect metastases. Advances in animal brain imaging, including cellular MRI and multimodality imaging, allow sensitive and specific detection of brain metastases and monitoring treatment responses. These imaging technologies, together with novel translational breast cancer models based on patient-derived cancer tissues, represent a unique opportunity to advance our understanding of brain metastases biology and develop novel treatment approaches. This review discusses the state-of-the-art knowledge in preclinical models of this disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".