MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281478032 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.903806

Single-Cell Proteomics Analysis of Recurrent Low-Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma and Associated Brain Metastases

2022· article· en· W4281478032 on OpenAlexafffund
Tanja Pejović, Pierre-Valérien Abate, Hongli Ma, Jaclyn Thiessen, Christopher L. Corless, Abigail Peterson, Hugues Allard‐Chamard, Marilyne Labrie

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersHealth CanadaOvarian Cancer CanadaCancer Research SocietyDr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation
KeywordsBrain metastasisMedicineSerous carcinomaOncologyInternal medicineSerous fluidOvarian cancerBrain tumorDiseaseMetastasisCancerPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between 2% and 6% of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients develop brain metastases (brain mets), which are incurable and invariably result in death. This poor outcome is associated with a lack of established guidelines for the detection and treatment of brain mets in EOC patients. In this study, we characterize an unusual case of low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (LGSOC) that metastasized to the brain. Using a spatially oriented single-cell proteomics platform, we compared sequential biopsies of a primary tumor with a peritoneal recurrence and brain mets. We identified several targetable oncogenic pathways and immunosuppressive mechanisms that are amplified in the brain mets and could be involved in the progression of LGSOC to the brain. Furthermore, we were able to identify cell populations that are shared between the primary tumor and the brain mets, suggesting that cells that have a propensity for metastasis to the brain could be identified early during the course of disease. Taken together, our findings further a path for personalized therapeutic decisions in LGSOC.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207