CCN proteins: opportunities for clinical studies—a personal perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diverse members of the CCN family now designated as CCN1(CYR61), CCN2 (CTGF), CCN3(NOV), CCN4(WISP1), CCN5(WISP2), CCN6(WISP3) are a conserved matricellular family of proteins exhibiting a spectrum of functional properties throughout all organs in the body. Interaction with cell membrane receptors such as integrins trigger intracellular signaling pathways. Proteolytically cleaved fragments (constituting the active domains) can be transported to the nucleus and perform transcriptional relevant functional activities. Notably, as also found in other protein families some members act opposite to others creating a system of functionally relevant checks and balances. It has become apparent that these proteins are secreted into the circulation, are quantifiable, and can serve as disease biomarkers. How they might also serve as homeostatic regulators is just becoming appreciated. In this review I have attempted to highlight the most recent evidence under the subcategories of cancer and non-cancer relevant that could lead to potential therapeutic approaches or ideas that can be factored into clinical advances. I have added my own personal perspective on feasibility.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it