MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384036019 · doi:10.3390/biom13071103

Omics Overview of the SPARC Gene in Mesothelioma

2023· review· en· W4384036019 on OpenAlexaff
Licun Wu, Marc de Perrot

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomolecules · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngiogenesisMetastasisOsteonectinCancer researchTumor microenvironmentBiologymicroRNACancerTumor progressionGeneGeneticsTumor cells

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The SPARC gene plays multiple roles in extracellular matrix synthesis and cell shaping, associated with tumor cell migration, invasion, and metastasis. The SPARC gene is also involved in the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) process, which is a critical phenomenon leading to a more aggressive cancer cell phenotype. SPARC gene overexpression has shown to be associated with poor survival in the mesothelioma (MESO) cohort from the TCGA database, indicating that this gene may be a powerful prognostic factor in MESO. Its overexpression is correlated with the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Here, we summarize the omics advances of the SPARC gene, including the summary of SPARC gene expression associated with prognosis in pancancer and MESO, the immunosuppressive microenvironment, and cancer cell stemness. In addition, SPARC might be targeted by microRNAs. Notably, despite the controversial functions on angiogenesis, SPARC may directly or indirectly contribute to tumor angiogenesis in MESO. In conclusion, SPARC is involved in tumor invasion, metastasis, immunosuppression, cancer cell stemness, and tumor angiogenesis, eventually impacting patient survival. Strategies targeting this gene may provide novel therapeutic approaches to the treatment of MESO.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomoleculesSame topicOccupational and environmental lung diseasesFrench-language works237,207