MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389556142 · doi:10.1186/s11658-023-00514-0

Role of N6-methyladenosine methylation in glioma: recent insights and future directions

2023· review· en· W4389556142 on OpenAlexaff
Chunlin Li, Bowen Li, Hui Wang, Linglong Qu, Hui Liu, Chao Weng, Jinming Han, Yuan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCellular & Molecular Biology Letters · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA modifications and cancer
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Shandong ProvinceNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceGovernment of Jiangsu Province
KeywordsGliomaMethylationNeurogenesisBiologyRNA methylationMalignancyCancer researchDNA methylationCancerPopulationBioinformaticsNeuroscienceMedicineGene expressionGeneMethyltransferaseGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glioma is the most pervasive intracranial tumor in the central nervous system (CNS), with glioblastoma (GBM) being the most malignant type having a highly heterogeneous cancer cell population. There is a significantly high mortality rate in GBM patients. Molecular biomarkers related to GBM malignancy may have prognostic values in predicting survival outcomes and therapeutic responses, especially in patients with high-grade gliomas. In particular, N6-methyladenine (m6A) mRNA modification is the most abundant form of post-transcriptional RNA modification in mammals and is involved in regulating mRNA translation and degradation. Cumulative findings indicate that m6A methylation plays a crucial part in neurogenesis and glioma pathogenesis. In this review, we summarize recent advances regarding the functional significance of m6A modification and its regulatory factors in glioma occurrence and progression. Significant advancement of m6A methylation-associated regulators as potential therapeutic targets is also discussed.

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 score0.974
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations36
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCellular & Molecular Biology LettersSame topicRNA modifications and cancerFrench-language works237,207