MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280516697 · doi:10.1042/bsr20220040

Commentary on: SMARCB1 as a novel diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for osteosarcoma

2022· article· en· W4280516697 on OpenAlexaff
Consolato Sergi

Bibliographic record

VenueBioscience Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSMARCB1BiologyCancer researchBiomarkerGene expressionGeneGeneticsChromatin remodeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last couple of decades, biomarkers have been on the rise for diagnostic and predictive value. There has been a rush to identify new markers using new technologies and drug repurposing approaches. SMARCB1 acronym arises from the SWI/SNF (SWItch/Sucrose Non-Fermentable)-related Matrix-associated Actin-dependent Regulator of Chromatin subfamily B member 1 (SMARCB1). It is a molecule, whose role is associated with the sucrose metabolism. SMARCB1 is also called INI1 (Integrase Interactor 1). The molecule was discovered in the mid-1990s. Its role as a loss-of-function marker for malignant rhabdoid tumors (MRT) of renal and extrarenal origin has enormously expanded the spectrum of involved neoplasms since that time. Several tumors have been characterized by genetic aberrations in the SMARCB1 gene. They include reduction in expression, loss of expression, and mosaic expression. Most of the tumors are sarcomas, but a variegated group of tumors with mixed phenotypes has also been delineated. It is well known that the outcome of patients harboring genetic aberrations in the SMARCB1 gene has been poor. Guo et al. reported that reduced SMARCB1 expression occurred in 70% of osteosarcomas. Their data significantly correlated with poor neoadjuvant response. These authors emphasize a shorter progression-free and overall survival of the patients demonstrating an altered expression of this gene. Interestingly, mRNA in silico analysis established that SMARCB1 expression correlates with the response to chemotherapy of osteosarcoma patients, but there was no reliable correlation between SMARCB1 expression level and metastasis, response to neoadjuvant therapy, overall survival, and progression-free survival. The study involved a tissue microarray (TMA) on bone tumors that may limit the full evaluation of the gene expression. Nevertheless, Guo et al.'s study is remarkable. It expands the list of the tumors harboring an altered SMARCB1 gene expression and suggests that this marker should be investigated in every pathology workup for potential predictive value. On the other side, much work needs to be done if we hope that we strive to provide additional therapeutic strategies for osteosarcoma patients with altered SMARCB1 gene expression.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0320.038
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.009

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioscience ReportsSame topicChromatin Remodeling and CancerFrench-language works237,207