MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290844254 · doi:10.3233/bd-210047

Loss of genes in chromosome arms 5q and 16q in breast cancer

2022· article· en· W4290844254 on OpenAlexaff
Ioannis A. Voutsadakis

Bibliographic record

VenueBreast Disease · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityEssar Steel Algoma (Canada)Sault Area Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerBiologyChromosomeGeneBasal (medicine)CancerGeneticsCancer researchOncologyMedicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Losses of genetic material from chromosomes 5q and 16q commonly occur in sub-sets of breast cancer. Their significance from a pathophysiologic point of view is not well-defined. METHODS: This study uses publicly available genomic data from extensive breast cancer datasets to define the landscape of losses in chromosomal arms 5q and 16q in the two sub-types of breast cancer they most commonly occur, basal-like and luminal A cancers, respectively. RESULTS: It is shown that dozens of genes from these chromosomal arms are putatively hemi-deleted in few samples each. No individual gene from either 5q or 16q shows an incidence of deep deletion above 10% in the cohorts with basal-like and luminal A cancers or in the whole cohorts. A few tumor suppressor genes are deleted in a small number of samples, less than 5% in each cohort. Losses of 5q or 16q confer no survival advantage in either the basal-like or the luminal A cohorts from TCGA that harbor them. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that there are no individual genes in chromosomes 5q and 16q whose loss can be implicated in a dominant pathophysiologic sequence of events in breast cancer or its sub-sets.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBreast DiseaseSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207