MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239347184 · doi:10.33590/emj/20-00039

Metastasis: A Bane of Breast Cancer Therapy

2020· article· en· W4239347184 on OpenAlexafffund
Chidalu A. Edechi, Nnamdi Ikeogu, Lucas E. L. Terceiro, Jude E. Uzonna, Yvonne Myal

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Medical Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaResearch Institute in Oncology and HematologyUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCancerCare Manitoba Foundation
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineMetastasisCancerMetastatic breast cancerCA15-3OncologyInternal medicineImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The underlying mechanisms of metastasis in patients with breast cancer is still poorly understood. Approximately 6% of patients with breast cancer present with metastasis at the time of diagnosis. Metastatic breast cancer is difficult to treat and patients with breast cancer with distant metastasis have a significantly lower 5-year survival rate compared to patients with localised breast cancer (27% and 99%, respectively). During breast cancer progression, tumour cells first metastasise to nearby draining lymph nodes and then to distant organs, primarily bone, lungs, liver, and brain. In this brief review, the authors discuss breast cancer metastasis, the role of epithelial–mesenchymal transition and the contributions of the immune system to the metastatic process. The authors also briefly discuss whether there is any relationship between tumour size and metastatic potential, and recent advances in treatment for metastatic breast cancer. The studies highlighted suggest that immunotherapy may play a more significant role in future patient care for metastatic breast cancer.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Medical JournalSame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207