MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386996573 · doi:10.3390/genes14101856

Decoding Cancer Evolution: Integrating Genetic and Non-Genetic Insights

2023· review· en· W4386996573 on OpenAlexafffund
Arghavan Ashouri, Chufan Zhang, Federico Gaiti

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPrincess Margaret Cancer Foundation
KeywordsMulticellular organismBiologyCancerSomatic evolution in cancerComputational biologyAdaptabilityCancer cellEvolutionary biologyCellGeneticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of cancer begins with cells transitioning from their multicellular nature to a state akin to unicellular organisms. This shift leads to a breakdown in the crucial regulators inherent to multicellularity, resulting in the emergence of diverse cancer cell subpopulations that have enhanced adaptability. The presence of different cell subpopulations within a tumour, known as intratumoural heterogeneity (ITH), poses challenges for cancer treatment. In this review, we delve into the dynamics of the shift from multicellularity to unicellularity during cancer onset and progression. We highlight the role of genetic and non-genetic factors, as well as tumour microenvironment, in promoting ITH and cancer evolution. Additionally, we shed light on the latest advancements in omics technologies that allow for in-depth analysis of tumours at the single-cell level and their spatial organization within the tissue. Obtaining such detailed information is crucial for deepening our understanding of the diverse evolutionary paths of cancer, allowing for the development of effective therapies targeting the key drivers of cancer evolution.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.284 · 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.

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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenesSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207